Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Westminster Council

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the level of revenue support grant settlement in 1996–97 with respect to Westminster council. [25671]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I have received a number of representations, including some that point out that, when compared with a city such as Liverpool, Westminster has been much less generously treated by the Government than it was under the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if every council got the same help that Westminster gets, 336 out of the 358 councils would be able to pay a rebate and that 10 would be able to pay a rebate of more than £900 per council tax payer? Is not that political largesse completely unjustifiable by anyone outside the Conservative party? It is a political fix and he should admit it and be ashamed.

Mr. Gummer: What I will confirm is that if the same figures had been arranged under a Labour Government, more people would have been able to do more than that. That shows how ridiculous the hon. Gentleman's proposition is. If all councils were given the same money as Tower Hamlets, there would not be an area in the country that would not be able to do much better than he suggested, but the Labour party controls Tower Hamlets, so it does not like to say that.

Mr. Brooke: As the working population of my constituency exceeds the national average by a factor of almost 20 and exceeds that of any other constituency by a factor of five, will my right hon. Friend accept my representation that I am glad that he has noticed that my two authorities are different in category and not only in degree?

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend may also have noticed that all independent observers point out that the system that we use is objective and the most sophisticated in the world. The only person who does not believe that is the hon. Member for Holborn and

St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who said that he does not accept what experts say. That is because they never agree with him.

Ms Armstrong: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the experts disagree that Westminster is the fourth most deprived area and say that this is a serious matter that the Government should address? Should not the Government address the fact that, if Trafford got the same council tax support as Westminster, it would be able to give every council tax payer £527 back; Rochdale would be able to give £303 back; and Oldham would be able to give £145 back? The Westminster skew is a fiddle; everyone knows it and will show it on Thursday.

Mr. Gummer: It is odd that, when the hon. Lady was asked about it, she said that she would not like to promise major changes in the system that we use. She is condemned out of her own mouth. She knows that what she says is not accepted by any of the Labour-controlled local authority organisations and that no one from any political party who understands the system agrees with her. She knows that she is trying to mislead the country. The country knows it, too, and will show it on Thursday.

Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend know that Wokingham district council is receiving no revenue support grant this year, yet, for the third successive year, Conservatives have offered a cut in the council tax while offering improved services? Unfortunately, the Liberals have forced through a 13 per cent. increase in the council tax and a deterioration in services. Does not that show that Thursday matters and that people must vote Conservative on Thursday for lower taxes?

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend is too kind to the Opposition parties—it is true not just in Wokingham, but throughout the country, that it costs £225 a year more to have a Labour council than a Conservative council. What is more, the Audit Commission shows that people get less for paying more. They pay more with Labour and get worse services. That is what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is trying to hide with his wholly spurious comments about Westminster.

Rents-to-mortgages Scheme

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the take-up of the rents-to-mortgages scheme in 1996. [25672]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): My Department has made no estimate of future sales.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister agree that the scheme has been another sunken disaster flagship policy for the Tory party—a waste of money and a waste of time? Would it not be more sensible, if the Government are really concerned about housing, to do something to help people with mortgage difficulties, perhaps by considering a mortgages-to-rents policy instead of a rents-to-mortgages policy?

Mr. Clappison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that an effort to help people into home ownership is a waste of time. He will be aware that it is one of a range of policies through which we have promoted home ownership since 1979. Due to that range of policies, more than 1.5 million people are home owners, including 2, 000 former council tenants in his constituency. I make no apologies for promoting home ownership. Tens of thousands of people are going into home ownership through such schemes every year. One of the interesting things about the scheme is that it is an attempt to help those on lower incomes into home ownership. The hon. Gentleman's party is turning its back on those people, just as it is turning its back on those who want opportunities in education by threatening to abolish child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. Labour is turning its back on home ownership and education.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that attack on the rents-to-mortgages scheme and Labour's votes yesterday to restrict the right to buy show that new Labour has the same stupid prejudices as old Labour?

Mr. Clappison: The same instincts are there. Labour has criticised every attempt to help people into home ownership and it is still doing so.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister now admit that, despite 13 clauses in legislation, huge publicity efforts and £140,000-worth of promotional expenditure, the Government have managed to persuade just 15 people in the country to take up the scheme? Does the Under-Secretary of State recall his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, saying in Committee of another Tory white elephant—the infamous tenants' choice scheme—
it is daft to leave in the Bill something that does not work and is therefore redundant, so we will get shot of it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 2 April 1996; c. 1037.]
When will the Government get shot of the absurd rents-to-mortgages scheme and, more to the point, when will the country get shot of this absurd Government?

Mr. Clappison: The import of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that it is wrong for Governments to explore opportunities for helping people into home ownership. The success of our policy is reflected in the more than 1.5 million people who have gone into home ownership since 1979. I am surprised that Labour's spokesman on housing is adopting the criticisms of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). He should be aware that, in his constituency, more than 7, 000 householders have been helped into home ownership since 1979. We make no apologies for trying to help people into home ownership.

Workplace Safety Representatives

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to strengthen the position of workplace safety representatives; and if he will make a statement. [25673]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): The current system of workplace safety representatives works well, but we

intend to bring forward regulations to extend consultation rights to workplaces where there are no trade union safety representatives.

Mr. Clapham: It is interesting that the Minister says that consultation procedures are to be modified, as he will know that safety representatives, working through their safety committees, have been an enormous influence in reducing accidents but that accidents have increased in some industries, such as mining. A couple of weeks ago, I drew to the Minister's attention the fact that a mining company operating in Northumberland—Stormgate Mining Ltd.—had not renewed its employer's liability insurance, yet men were working at that colliery. In his modified consultation procedure, will he arrange with the Coal Authority a register of all the activities of companies employed in the mining industry, to include a copy of the employer's liability insurance certificate, so that it can be viewed by the safety representatives at the colliery?

Sir Paul Beresford: We are looking at, reviewing and giving consideration to this case.

Home Renovation Grants

Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mandatory home renovation grants were awarded by local authorities in 1995. [25674]

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): There were 34, 300.

Mr. Pope: Tens of thousands of people live in unfit housing across east Lancashire. They struggle to get the grants to which they are legally entitled and, later today, the Government will seek to remove their legal right to mandatory improvement grants. Why is the Minister intent on taking away the only chance that my constituents and many other people have of getting a decent home?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman clearly has some difficulties with chronology—that does not happen in the Housing Bill, which we are to consider today. If he holds his breath and submits an application, he may be able to serve on the Committee that considers the next Bill, which will replace mandatory grants with discretionary grants. First, he should get his documents in order. Secondly, we cannot sustain a system that has a cash-limited grant and unlimited entitlement to it—the sums do not add up. Therefore, the sensible thing to do is to make a discretionary grant and to give local authorities the ability to focus it on the areas of greatest need so that they can serve the genuine interests of regeneration. That is what the Bill will do.

Mr. Pickles: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, sometimes, we need to go beyond these grants and that some housing estates require fundamental reorganisation? Is he aware that, for the past 10 years, an estate in Islington has been promised renovation work? Is he further aware that, for the past 10 years, Islington council has pontificated and promised the tenants some work, but that it has failed to fulfil its promise because of its incompetence?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right: some of the older estates require much more substantial work. The Government have an estates renewal programme that is specifically designed to tackle the worst estates. What he has said about Islington council will surprise no one—it has a dismal record, which no doubt continues.

Ms Eagle: Will the Minister admit that the 1.5 million people who live in homes that are unfit to live in will be disappointed that the Government are abolishing this scheme and that they are replacing it with a discretionary scheme? When will the Government provide money so that people can look forward to having their homes made fit to live in? That is not really such a big ambition as we reach the end of the 20th century.

Mr. Curry: First, there has been a substantial programme for the improvement of homes. Secondly, many homes are unfit for simple or minor reasons. Thirdly, public expenditure constraints have to be observed. Fourthly, when the second Bill comes to this House, it will be interesting to see whether the Labour party will do what it did in the other place—refuse to give any commitment whatsoever to restore full mandatory grants. If the Labour party wants to make an effective point on this, it would be awfully nice to know what it plans to do in this area of public expenditure and on taxation. The two are linked, and we still know nothing.

Planning Policy Guidance (Countryside)

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the Government's planning policy guidance for the countryside. [25675]

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency(Mr. Robert B. Jones): Following our well-received White Paper entitled "Rural England", we expect to consult on a draft revision of planning policy guidance note 7 and on a possible rural business use class before the summer recess.

Mr. Robathan: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Department on the excellent White Paper entitled "Rural England". Is he aware—perhaps he will take account of this in his consultations—of the unhappiness in some rural areas, particularly in my district of Blaby and Harborough in Leicestershire, because district councils are being compelled to provide for a large number of new homes on green-field sites? Will he, in his consultation, look to encourage the regeneration and rebuilding of inner cities on derelict land rather than building new homes on green-field sites?

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the White Paper. It is precisely because we want sustainable development in housing, as elsewhere, that, for the very first time, we have set a target for the percentage of housing to be built on existing developed land. I have said to the Environment Committee that, if experience allows us, we will raise that target in time.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister accept that current planning policy guidance is a jungle of anomalies and

inconsistencies? For example, why has he refused to publish the results of the review into planning policy guidance note 6 until after the local elections on Thursday? Does he realise that the delay is causing massive confusion? When will we have planning policy guidance that is clear, consistent and strategic, rather than the mess that we have at the moment?

Mr. Jones: Let me help the hon. Gentleman. He knows that there is a convention that announcements such as that are not made in the run-up to local elections. We shall make the announcement immediately after the local elections, in accordance with the right practices in government.
While the hon. Gentleman is posing a question on the subject, let me ask him about reports in the weekend's press that the Labour party was poised to reverse our policy on out-of-town shopping. I am sure that any squalid deals cooked up by the Labour party, along with the squalid deals that it cooked up with BT and with Rupert Murdoch, will show it for what it is.

Compulsory Competitive Tendering

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he intends to take to ensure that there is an equality of treatment when contracts are being let under compulsory competitive tendering between direct service organisations and the private sector. [25676]

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend will be aware that, earlier this month, we issued new statutory guidance to local authorities on compulsory competitive tendering. In addition, we will publish our proposals for changing the CCT system next month.

Mr. Congdon: I warmly welcome that guidance and my hon. Friend's efforts to root out anti-competitive practices in local authorities, but does he accept that many local authorities—especially Labour ones—will do everything possible to ensure that contracts are let to their own direct labour organisations? Will he take further steps to encourage the district auditor service more rigorously to try to root out those anti-competitive practices and to pay special attention to the terms of reference of direct service organisation boards, which appear to be set up to rig the system in favour of DSOs?

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shenanigans that some Labour and Liberal local authorities get up to dodge the common sense of competitive tendering are staggering. The district auditors, or the external auditing system, have the power to act in many areas, and need encouragement to do so. We shall certainly continue the encouragement, along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister recall insisting that Birmingham city council should re-advertise its five housing management contracts when it had awarded them in fair competition with the private sector? Does he realise that that costs council tax payers in the city £1.5 million? Will he foot that bill?

Sir Paul Beresford: The answer is that it was not a fair competition. The fiddling of the books and the shenanigans that went on were incredible—not only in housing, but in other areas, time and again—and the people who lose are the people who pay and the people who receive the services. This is a blow of old Labour, and it is about time that people, including Opposition Members, understood the advantages of competitive tendering.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that a very good example of the importance of transferring contracts to the private sector may be found in Cambridgeshire, where nearly £2 million has been lost to direct labour organisations by the incompetent, half-baked Lib-Lab county council?

Sir Paul Beresford: There are repeated examples of such cases throughout the country. Bradford is a classic example. By shenanigans, it lost £1.2 million. When it was forced to repeat the tendering process, the new contract went out to the private sector, with a saving of £700, 000.

Darlington and Westminster Councils

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the local authority grant per head in (a) Darlington and (b) Westminster; and if he will make a statement. [25677]

Mr. Gummer: This year, £997 for Westminster and £621 for Darlington. That is a difference of 75 per cent. In the last year of Labour government, the difference was 84 per cent.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those figures. Do not they show that, if Darlington received the same level of Government help as Westminster city council, this year, every family in my constituency, instead of paying a council tax bill, would receive a rebate of £681? Is it not a national disgrace that the local authority grant system has been skewed and rigged to favour one inefficient Tory flagship council?

Mr. Gummer: What it shows is that any skewing that took place took place a darn sight more under Labour than it does under the Conservatives. It also shows that the hon. Gentleman should not work out a supplementary question before he has heard the answer to the main question.
The Labour party is entirely wrong. All the figures show that Westminster did significantly better than many of the councils that have been cited when the Labour party was in power. The Labour party's fox has been shot: if Labour Members understood the system, they would not have started the argument.

Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while a number of authorities may complain that the grant per head is not sufficient and that the methodology is weighted against them, whether one lives in Darlington or in Westminster, until the local government organisations controlled by the opposition parties can

suggest alterations to that methodology that are acceptable to local authorities, it will be very difficult for the Government to make any changes?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend points out that all three local authority organisations that are run by Labour do not make the same claims as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). They understand how the system works and they are part and parcel of it. The hon. Gentleman, who will not listen to experts, does not understand how that system works. Parties such as his charge people £225 a year more than would a Conservative council.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the present grant regime, council tax payers in Westminster contribute just 4 per cent. towards the cost of their council but that, in Darlington, council tax payers contribute more than 30 per cent—and that council tax payers in Bromsgrove, Hertsmere, North Hertfordshire, Milton Keynes and Wyre Forest pay more than 30 per cent? In Basildon—the other Tory flagship—people must contribute 42 per cent. towards the cost of their council. Does not that show that the whole system is a rigged racket that favours Westminster, and that legions of Tory Members of Parliament vote for that racket, following the party line rather than standing up for local people?

Mr. Gummer: Where were the legions of Labour Members of Parliament when Westminster did better under Labour than it does under the Conservatives? The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that he has not done his homework. He thinks that, if he says the same thing again and again, people will believe him—even though what he says is fundamentally untrue, as anyone who understands the system knows.
The fact is that Westminster did better under Labour—it received a bigger proportion of funds under Labour—and Labour Members of Parliament voted for that year in, year out. The Government apply an objective system to everyone, including Camden, even though Labour runs its councils so badly.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the grant per head made to Suffolk county council is extremely generous? Does he share my shock at the way in which the Labour and Liberal county councillors are now ruthlessly switching resources away from the villages and the rural areas of Suffolk in order to prop up their friends in the towns? Does not that prove that, when it comes to rigging local authority finances, the Labour and Liberal parties are the experts?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is far too kind. He fails to mention the fact that, although Suffolk county council received an extra £11.5 million to spend on education, it spent only £8.5 million and put the rest elsewhere. He does not mention either that the council cut off funding for transport for 16 to 18-year-olds, thus underlining Labour's tax on A-levels. The Labour party has taken money from parents by way of travel allowance and it would also abolish child allowance for 16 to 18-year-olds. It is opposed to those who keep their children at school. The Labour party costs more and it spends public money where it wants rather than where the people want it to be spent.

Forestry

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding forestry in England. [25678]

Mr. Clappison: During the consultation on the rural White Paper, we received 54 written representations on forestry. We continue to receive representations on many aspects of forestry.

Mr. Michie: Will the Minister make representations to the Scottish Office, which has overall responsibility for our forests, to stop the back-door privatisation of Forestry Commission land by Forest Enterprise as that would restrict public access and reduce the environmental quality of our woodlands, which are a precious national asset?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that high-access woodlands are not included in the disposal programmes and that, in other cases, local authorities have opportunities to reach agreements on access. In view of his comments and concern, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Government are improving access to woodlands by the creation of the national forest and the network of 12 community forests serving large parts of Britain, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency in South Yorkshire. I hope that his constituents will enjoy that access in due course.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend will recognise that the few remaining areas of woodland and forest within Greater London and within the M25 are particularly important national assets. Will he ensure that those areas, many of which are green-belt areas and sites of special scientific interest, remain sacrosanct in respect of planning and development?

Mr. Clappison: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend as my constituency is within the M25 and includes some of that woodland. He will be aware of the community forest that serves my constituency. It is Government policy to preserve open spaces and forests within the metropolitan green belt.

District Auditor Service

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from local authorities regarding the role of the district auditor service. [25679]

Mr. Curry: None.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister will be aware that the district auditor service is highly regarded by many local authorities, including Labour-controlled Kirklees. If he wants to talk or shout about squalid deals and shenanigans, he should recognise that many people in local government believe that the Secretary of State brought undue pressure on the district auditor to delay the report on Westminster city council until after Thursday's local election. If on May 7 that report—the Tories, who are shouting, do not like this—names the individuals responsible for wasting £30 million of taxpayers' money

on gerrymandering, will the Minister or the Secretary of State ensure that action is taken to drive those people out of public life for good?

Mr. Curry: That accusation is categorically untrue. It is a scandalous attack on the integrity of the auditor dealing with Westminster's affairs.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend tell that lot opposite that we do not like having district auditors' reports carried out at the behest of council tax payers and Liberal Democrat councillors refusing to publish the results? Does he agree that everyone considering voting Liberal Democrat on Thursday should know that that party should carry a financial health warning?

Mr. Curry: We can all agree that any sensible system of local government must have a system of independent audit and that sensible politicians will recognise that the auditors must be allowed to get on with their job without political intervention.

Mr. Rendel: Given the length of time that the auditor has had to report on Westminster city council, and acknowledging the great difficulties that have been created by the procrastination of former Conservative councilors—

Mr. Field: When will the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) answer my question about the district auditor's report?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has put his question. Let us hear someone else now.

Mr. Rendel: Given the delay in the publication of the report and its importance in respect of various people's continuance in public office, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that major reports are produced rather more quickly in future?

Mr. Curry: The Government have no intention of intervening in the process of audit for any purpose. If local government is to be based on financial integrity, the audit service must be free of political interference and in the hands of an independent authority. I do not intend to intervene in that process. The Labour party plans to transform the Audit Commission into a super surrogate for local government. Nothing would be more dangerous. The matter is best left in the hands of the Audit Commission, which does its job very well.

River Thames (London)

Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to enhance the use and amenities of the River Thames in London. [25680]

Mr. Gummer: My strategic planning guidance for the Thames will have as its three major goals quality building along the Thames, more freight and leisure traffic on the river, and the conservation of its natural environment.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Notwithstanding the fact that there are no elections in London this Thursday, is my right


hon. Friend aware that the initiatives and the actions he has taken to promote greater use of, and to enhance the amenities of, the Thames have been far greater than were ever achieved under the old and little-lamented Greater London council? Does he further agree that the siting of the major millennium project at Greenwich will give a glorious opportunity for the Thames, especially in central and east London?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will accept that the planning of the Thames needs to have a strategy that reaches way beyond the old GLC area, right down to the coast. That is another example of the fact that one can deal with London's strategic problems only on a variable basis. Boroughs on both sides of the Thames are now working together inside and outside the old Greater London area in a way that they would never have done when they were borne down upon by the expensive, inefficient and failed Greater London council.

Miss Hoey: Does the Secretary of State agree that the River Thames is a wonderful asset for London and that there are many new developments, especially on the south bank in my constituency? Will he especially welcome the new millennium wheel? It will be a most wonderful monument to the millennium. Does he further agree that, if we are serious about developing the use of the River Thames, we have to make it much easier for piers to be provided along the river, and planning guidance should be changed to help to achieve that? If new developments had to provide a pier, that would do a great deal to ensure that the river could be used.

Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Lady will be pleased with the strategic guidance, because that is the sort of subject on which we have been working together in the all-party group that has directed the preparation of that guidance. I am also pleased to agree with her about the enormous advantages of the proposals that have been made for sites all along the Thames. It would be wrong of me to make an especial comment about the great Ferris wheel, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that we need to show that we have the confidence in these years to make big changes and to stand up for this generation to show that we have something to offer to the next.

New Housing

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses have been constructed in the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [25683]

Mr. Curry: There were 370, 100 completions in Great Britain in 1994 and 1995

Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the level of house building in Swindon rose from 664 houses in 1994–95 to 1,163 houses in 1995–96? Is not that near doubling in the number of houses under construction in those two years clear evidence of a very strong recovery of the economy?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The basis for that recovery is the containment of public expenditure and ensuring that interest rates remain low. Both those would

be threatened by a policy of spend and high taxation such as the Labour party refuses to deny. The Labour party will not give us any details on what it will spend and what it will tax.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Despite those figures, is it not the case that real housing need—that of the homeless—is not being met? Is it not the Government's policy to prevent local authorities from building the necessary houses for social rent and affordable housing? When will the Government do something about providing homes for the homeless?

Mr. Curry: As a matter of interest, I spent part of this morning at a conference run by the English Churches housing association, dealing with the problems of street homelessness in London. At that conference, there was a very warm welcome for the imaginative and forward-looking programmes to deal with people in the worst possible circumstances—the street homeless. The hon. Gentleman will know that we plan to extend those programmes to cities outside London, where a clear need can he determined and where the voluntary sector and the public and statutory authorities can work together. That is a remarkable attack on the problems of the people in the worst possible circumstances in the United Kingdom, and it works.

Water Bills

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the use of a pre-payment card system for the payment of water bills. [25684]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My Department has recently received representations on the use of budget payment units, which use a pre-payment card system, from the hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and from one charitable organisation. I am confident that the units have helped to reduce problems of water debt, as have the trusts that a number of water companies have set up to help customers who cannot pay.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that budget payment units are extremely popular with the 16, 000 customers who voluntarily opted to have them installed? is not it ironic that certain local authorities, mainly Labour, have sought to challenge the legality of the provision by water companies of budget payment units?

Mr. Jones: I agree that it is extraordinary. Not only have the units been helpful but MORI surveys have shown that 90 per cent. of customers are satisfied.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Minister make a distinction between budget pre-payment units that make payment easy and timing devices that shut off the water supply when the money runs out, thus leaving the household without a supply? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that representations have been made against the latter devices by the National Consumer Council, local authorities, the National Federation of Housing Associations and environmental health officers because


those devices pose a risk to public health? Will the Minister at least ensure that the number of people whose water supplies are cut off by such devices is published alongside disconnection figures, which are generally published?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Lady ought to acknowledge that both methods are popular and voluntary. I am sorry that there is a split in the Labour party on the subject. Clive Wilkinson, the former Labour leader of Birmingham city council, said:
The overwhelming view of customers in my area who have had them installed is that these units are a good thing. I have not received a single complaint about the units from customers. I do not want to see customers being denied the choice if they want to opt for one of these units.

Chemical Waste Recycling (Worcester)

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposal from NORCHEM to establish a chemical waste recycling facility at Warndon, Worcester. [25685]

Mr. Clappison: My Department has received 125 representations on that subject.

Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that that number of representations shows the depth of anger in my constituency at an unwelcome and totally inappropriate proposal, which has already led to the deselection of the local Labour county councillor who argued for NORCHEM and against the interests of my constituents? Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that the Environment Agency refuses a licence, and re-examine the city and county council planning procedures that led to this unfortunate situation?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is correct when he says that there is clearly huge interest in this serious subject among the people of Worcester. My hon. Friend will be aware of the restrictions on me and on the Department in respect of planning cases and the actions of local authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that I will take a particular interest in the matter.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Environment Agency's powers over waste management, and over licensing in particular. The system is highly acclaimed and those powers will be available in this case, if necessary.

Water Industry

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the regulation of the water industry. [25686]

Mr. Gummer: The regulatory system for the water industry in England and Wales ensures that the companies can finance their investment programmes while protecting the interests of customers and the environment.

Mr. Dalyell: If Britain has a dryish May, June and July, who will pay for the emergency measures in August and September? Will it be the water companies, consumers or Government?

Mr. Gummer: Happily, the likelihood is that, even if this year is as difficult as last year, no one in England will

be subject to rota cuts or standpipes. If that is so, the privatised water companies will have achieved something that was never achieved by the nationalised companies at any time in the history of similar water situations. It is for the water companies to make provision.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem being encountered by Batley city challenge, in being prevented by Yorkshire Water from using water for stone-cleaning activities? What advice can my right hon. Friend give that city challenge?

Mr. Gummer: I am pleased to say that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), has agreed to look into that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) will know that Yorkshire Water has made major changes and considerable investment, to ensure that the water problems of last year are overcome.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Standard Spending Assessments

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of recent representations he has received on standard spending assessments. [25687]

Mr. Curry: We consider all representations received on SSAs. Proposals for change are examined with the local authority associations in the standard spending assessment sub-group of the settlement working group.

Mr. Jones: Why did the Government show favouritism to Westminster council?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the system of local government finance. We direct the funds where the needs are greatest, which is why in London the single biggest recipient of Government support is Tower Hamlets, followed by councils such as Southwark, Lambeth and Islington. If we did not do that, that would indeed be wrong. The idea that there should be a pro rata rate across the country is both fundamentally wrong and extremely silly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25701]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Prime Minister had drawn to his attention the article that appeared in the British Medical Journal last week, which stated that the


Committee on Safety of Medicines recommended the prohibition, for pharmaceutical purposes, of all beef products from potentially bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected herds as far back as 1989? In view of that information, will he tell me why the Department of Health did not make similar recommendations about beef consumption at that time?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will weigh very carefully what he has to say in these matters. That is most emphatically not what his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) did some time ago. We take and make public the advice that is appropriate in terms of safety in this country. That is our responsibility and that is what we do.

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25702]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his cohorts on the Opposition Benches fall over themselves to try to get the votes of the gin and Jag brigade—the middle classes—but is the Prime Minister aware that it is the Conservative party that speaks for those in my constituency, in Cleethorpes and Immingham, who are still proud to call themselves working class? Is it not a fact that those people look to the Conservative party and the Conservative Government to ensure that they have the chance to buy their council house, to escape from trade union rule, from the closed shop, and to ensure that child benefit is protected for their children, who want better and further education? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: The latest recruit to the middle classes, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is heckling from a sedentary position. I hope that his arrival among the middle classes did not cause them too much distress. The policies that he advocates certainly would: higher taxes on people—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East says it on his aircraft. The shadow Transport Minister says it publicly and then does not subsequently deny it. There would be an extra tax, of course, on parents who have children at school between 16 and 18—a special tartan tax if someone happens to be a Scot. Those people can have that sort of tax as well. If someone happens to be a Londoner, they can have a top-up tax. Tax after tax. The Opposition know that that is their position. We are cutting taxes now. The Opposition plan to increase them.

Mr. Blair: I think that what most people remember is the 22 tax rises since 1992, and VAT going on—from the Prime Minister who said that it would not.
Is it correct, as has been reported today, that recorded crime in January and February of this year was substantially above recorded crime for the same period last year?

The Prime Minister: The minute that was leaked, which has caused some correspondence between the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my right hon. and

learned Friend the Home Secretary, is not accurate. When the figures are available to us, we will publish them in the normal way, but I understand that the leak that appeared this morning was not accurate.

Mr. Blair: I hope that the Prime Minister will publish the full figures. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order—all of it. That includes the Front Bench below the Gangway.

Mr. Blair: The same memorandum says that recorded crime has now risen for six consecutive months. Is that correct? Is it also correct that the trend in crime is upwards, as the memorandum additionally says? If those two points are correct, will the Prime Minister accept that, since the Conservatives came to power, crime has actually more than doubled?

The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, we will publish the detailed figures at the usual time in the usual way; but, as it happens, parts of the figures in the memorandum that was leaked were wrong. Although monthly figures are always volatile, there is no doubt that crime fell in the last two months of 1995, so it cannot have just risen for the past six months, as the right hon. Gentleman said it did.
If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about reducing crime, perhaps he can explain to us why he and his party vote against every measure that we introduce to be tough on crime. Why do they always make excuses for the criminal, and ignore the pleas of the victims?

Mr. Blair: This party was advancing constructive proposals for law and order while the right hon. Gentleman's Ministers were still boasting about the numbers coming out of prison.
If the Prime Minister says that parts of the memorandum are wrong, perhaps he will now tell us which parts are right. Perhaps, instead of talking nonsense about Labour policy, he will admit the truth about his own—that people are less safe in their own homes, less secure in their jobs and less confident of their future, and that it is precisely because of that weakness, failure and incompetence that people will be so justified in punishing his party on Thursday.

The Prime Minister: That comment was a long time coming, and it was not really worth waiting for. We will publish the figures in the usual fashion at the usual time.
As for being constructive on proposals, I am surprised that the leader of the Labour party thinks that he is constructive on crime. We reformed the right of silence; he opposed it. Was that constructive? We gave the Attorney-General the right to appeal against soft sentences; the right hon. Gentleman opposed it. Was that constructive? We increased the penalty for cruelty to children; Labour opposed it. Was that constructive?
On issue after issue after issue, the Labour party shows that it is soft on crime. It is not prepared to take the measures that will attack the criminal and protect the


citizen, and, however the right hon. Gentleman tries to make partisan points, that is what the public know about his policy.

Sir Graham Bright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25703]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Sir Graham Bright>: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that child benefit for children who stay at school for a further two years to study for A-levels is worth in excess of £1,000? Can he also confirm that child benefit has its origins in tax rebate? If that were abolished, as Labour proposes, it would be equivalent to putting 5p on the basic rate of tax for the average parent. [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I note that Labour Members laugh at the thought of 5p on tax for people on average incomes. So much for their claim that they would not increase taxes. Child benefit was a tax allowance benefit; it was made into a cash payment for mothers to ensure that it was used on behalf of their children. Now Labour proposes to provide a disincentive to stop children from staying on at school.

Mr. Faulds: Don't be so childish. You are Prime Minister, for God's sake.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his cool.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) studied his party's policy on this issue, he would be right to be angry at the way in which it proposes to treat people up and down the country.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister is, I believe, an honourable man. [Interruption.] Yes, he is. Will he therefore confirm that he understands that, if once again Conservative Members of Parliament try to change the Prime Minister, while denying the country the chance to change the Government, it will be totally unacceptable to all the British people? Will he therefore confirm that if, after Thursday, they try to get rid of him, he will ensure that we have a chance to get rid of the Government?

The Prime Minister: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is dealing in fantasy again.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25704]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the article in today's Evening Standard about tube and bus fares in London? Is that not good news for Londoners, who can look forward to the extension of the Jubilee line, improvements to the Northern line, Thameslink 2000, the Heathrow to Paddington link, improvements to the

docklands light railway and the Croydon tramway link? Does that not show that we act, and the Greater London council just talked?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, who has been lobbying on many of those matters for many years, has clearly studied the transport document with great care. He is of course right. It is good news for passengers in London, and so of course is the policy of capping fares. We expect London transport fares to rise at a significantly lower level than in the past as part of a strategy of making public transport more attractive.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25705]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Brien: With reference to the previous question, which the Prime Minister did not really answer, will he say whether he has ever discussed an understanding whereby, if the Conservatives do not do well in the local government elections this week, he will make way for the Deputy Prime Minister? We need a reassurance on that, as the Prime Minister must understand. Will he take it from me that he has the support of much of the House to remain leader of the Conservative party up to a general election? He has the support of at least half the Conservative Members, and of every Labour Member.

The Prime Minister: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in mischief-making mode—[Interruption.] Clearly, he was not; clearly, he was just being silly.

Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend had a very successful breakfast meeting with business men in Warwickshire on Friday. Will he therefore repeat, for the benefit of the House, the points that he made about the social chapter and the damage that it would do to employment and prosperity in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I noticed over the past few days that countries abroad, particularly Germany, are now beginning to take action to bring down some of the high social costs that have created fiscal difficulties and unemployment in their countries. In this country, we are not prepared to have a social chapter, which is damaging as it stands but would be infinitely more damaging if we signed it, the rest of Europe brought their social expenditures into the social chapter, had them approved by qualified majority vote as they could, and then imposed them on British employers at the cost of British jobs. We are bringing unemployment down. I intend to see it come down further. I do not intend to take this country into the social chapter, to stop the fall in unemployment and to see it begin to rise again. That is no bargain for the British work force.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25706]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Prime Minister realise that not only is his deputy after his job but the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary are as well? We therefore need a categoric assurance that, however many seats the Conservatives lose on Thursday, the Prime Minister will lead his party into the next general election. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said, the Prime Minister has the support of almost half his party, and the support of all the Labour party.

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say just a moment or so ago, and I have no intention of accommodating his silly questions.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Given the interest in what happens after the next general election, did my right hon. Friend see the poll in The Times at the end of last week, which showed that the majority of people expected that, if there were to be a Labour Government, unemployment would go up, interest rates would go up, inflation would go up and there would be more control for the unions? Is that not the real reason why the Labour party wants to delay an election for as long as possible?

The Prime Minister: Of course people would expect that of a Labour Government. People know from experience that that is what has happened with every Labour Government we have ever had at any stage in the past, and that that would occur again—unemployment up,

interest rates up and tax rates up. There is absolutely no doubt that that is what happened in the past, and that is what would happen in the future.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25707]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that this is the last day of work for Mr. Cedric Brown, who retires with a pension of £250,000 and a continuing consultancy with British Gas of £144,000? Does the Prime Minister care to comment on today's press release from the North West gas consumers council, which states that complaints in the north-west region increased by 97 per cent. last year? Does he believe that Mr. Cedric Brown warrants that largesse?

The Prime Minister: I believe that when people get an unsatisfactory service they are right to complain. They are right to complain to British Gas, and, now that British Gas is in the private sector and faces competition, people can expect that their complaints will be taken seriously, which they certainly were not when British Gas was in the public sector—when prices were rising dramatically and when the service was falling. Under plans for competition—for which I see no support from the Labour party—people who are not satisfied with British Gas will have the opportunity of going elsewhere. That is what competition means.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

FAMILY LAW AND SOCIAL SECURITY

That the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 182) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 425) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

FAMILY LAW

That the Child Support Departure Direction (Anticipatory Application) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 635) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 462) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Question agreed to.

Points of Orders

Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to this House of Commons envelope, which has just been sent out in County Durham, enclosing a Westminster report from the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) with club news for the City of Durham Labour club? It seems to be a flagrant misuse of the paid post, which has been drawn to my attention by the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate in Durham. I wonder whether you would look into the matter.

Madam Speaker: We have procedures in the House that I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. I should be very much obliged if he would supply that material to the Serjeant at Arms, who will carry out an investigation. If it is necessary, a charge for the cost of the—[Interruption.] Order. I am talking. If it is necessary, a charge for the cost of the stationery and the postage will be levied against the hon. Member concerned.
I caution hon. Members from both sides of the House that House of Commons stationery and postage must not be used in this way. In any instance in which it is, the Serjeant at Arms must be informed right away, and he will keep me informed of his investigations. Would the hon. Member please let the Serjeant have all the information without delay?

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was certainly unaware of the situation. As every hon. Member knows, these things get sent out from one's office without our giving instructions to do so. I apologise to the House that this has happened. I will certainly make investigations and make sure that any money that is owed to the House is paid directly back. It was a mistake by my office. I am sure that many hon. Members leave it to their staff to do these things, and I shall certainly reimburse the House if there are any problems.

Madam Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I should be grateful if all hon. Members would make it clear to their staff, particularly in their constituencies, which is where the problem occurs, that House of Commons stationery must not be used in this way.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to catch your eye on such a noisy afternoon.
My point of order relates to Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I wonder whether you have had the opportunity this morning to read The Guardian article about HMSO. You will remember that, some weeks ago, we discussed the privatisation of HMSO, when hon. Members of all parties expressed a great deal of concern about its future. This morning's news shows that there has been a £3 million wipe-off of the debt owed to HMSO by the Republic of Uzbekistan. Has any Minister made an approach to you about making a statement? That news was available at the time of the debate, but we were not given the information.

Madam speaker: No Minister has made an approach to be about making a statement in the House, but I


understand that a written question is on the Order Paper. I believe that the answer is available. Perhaps I could refer the hon. Gentleman to it.

Mr. Derek Foster: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a little surprised to hear you say that no Minister wants to come and make a statement on that matter. I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster invited selected journalists into his office yesterday, and gave them full information. I understand that, subsequently, a written answer gave much less information than was given to the press.
There has been a £40 million loss in respect of HMSO for the first time in its history, £26 million of which was due to redundancies in preparation for privatisation. The House deserves a full statement on that matter, and on the matter raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: ;further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I do not usually take further points of order, because they can become a debate, but, exceptionally, I will hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bottomley: As the House has received a written answer and the HMSO accounts are in front of the House, what we have seen is a Member on the Opposition Front Bench asking a question as a point of order. If that habit is allowed to start, there are many written answers, and many of us could do the same thing.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will leave the matter to me, I was ready to reply.
The answer will be seen in Hansard of Monday 29 April at column 331. As for the last point of order, perhaps the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise that matter with the Leader of the House and seek a debate or a statement. As he knows, it is not within my authority.

Part-Time Employees (Equal Rights to Sick Pay and Leave)

Ms Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that employers give the same entitlements to sick pay and leave to their part-time staff as they do to their full-time staff.
This is the second of three ten-minute Bills—each, I am pleased to say, with cross-party support—which argue for the principle of equal and fair treatment for part-time workers. Only with a level playing field of rights and entitlements between full-time and part-time work can we look forward to the economy finding the most efficient distribution between the two.
Ultimately, no economic good will come if part-time work is just a cheaper alternative. A deregulated labour market such as ours will tend to produce too much of it, at the expense of full-time work. Lower pay will remove spending power in local economies. Lack of national insurance benefit entitlements will lead to poverty in childbirth, sickness and retirement, and exploitation will lead to lower productivity and fewer skills in our work force. Ultimately, that will undermine our competitiveness, not enhance it.
There are plenty of signs that that is already happening. The Trades Union Congress has been collecting case studies of the exploitation of part-time workers going on in Britain. Diane, a coach driver from Cornwall, is classed as part-time by her employer because he does not guarantee her any hours. She works anything from 96 hours a week in summer to 10 hours a week in winter. She says:
I get laid off for a fortnight over Christmas with no money and I don't get paid holidays or sick pay—I earn £3 an hour".
Karen is employed by a video sales and rental business in Staffordshire. Part-timers aged over 25 are paid £2.75 an hour, and, if aged under 25, just—1.75 an hour. They work nine hours on Sundays and bank holidays for no extra money. Holidays and time off for sickness are unpaid.
Mr. D is employed as a part-timer by a privatised utility. He says:
from day one, I have been working between 35 and 40 hours a week. Yet I'm not entitled to any of the usual benefits. Three weeks ago, me and all the other 'part timers' were told our services were no longer required. If companies can treat people like this, I hold out little hope for the future of our country.
Those case studies are not unique. They are not even unusual. They are typical of the sort of exploitation and discrimination that part-time workers face the length and breadth of the country.
All too often, part-time workers are treated as second-class by their employers. That attitude has been condoned and encouraged by the deregulation mania on the Conservative Benches. We must remember that, behind every tale of exploitation, there is a human being with feelings and with a life to plan and to organise.
Part-time work is an increasing feature in Britain, rising from 12 per cent. of the work force in the 1950s to 25 per cent. in the 1990s, and it is expected to reach more than 30 per cent. by the turn of the century. Six million of our fellow citizens work part-time. Most part-timers are women. Many choose to work shorter hours because it best enables them to juggle their caring responsibilities with their need or desire to earn their own living.


Many such women, however, have found themselves full-time breadwinners as part-time service jobs have replaced full-time manufacturing jobs. As I have shown, many people classified by their employers as "part-time" are working full-time hours, but failing to qualify for full-time rights.
Part-time work is not a hobby. It is not done for pin money, although it often pays peanuts. It makes a vital contribution to the household budget. People who work part-time deserve dignity, rights and access to such things as holiday and sick pay. It is about time hon. Members took part-time workers' needs seriously. Most are happy to work part-time, but they are unhappy that they are treated differently from their full-time colleagues. They want equal and fair treatment. The Bill would help them to achieve it.
Until recently, part-time workers were actively discriminated against by official Government policy. The deregulators in the Government have made a virtue out of discrimination. They have systematically stripped away protections from all people at work, but especially from part-timers. They used to have to wait five years before they qualified for any employment rights at all, but, thanks to a House of Lords judgment, their treatment has been equalised with that of full-timers.
Now is the time to extend that principle to other areas, because discrimination is still rife. The pay gap between full-time and part-time workers is large and widening. More than 500, 000 part-timers earn less than £2.50 about hour. Low pay means that 2 million part-timers do not earn even the £57 a week needed to pay national insurance contributions. With no record of such payment, they are ineligible for any contributory benefits, so, if they fall ill, they have no access to statutory sick pay.
As the deregulators in the Government have declined to require employers who provide occupational sick pay schemes to ensure that they cover all their employees, those benefits do not plug the sick pay gap, either. One in every three part-timers is completely excluded from sick pay benefits by his or her employer.
Paid holiday entitlement is an equally important issue. Most full-time workers have it, but it is often denied to part-timers. Britain is unique in the European Union in having no statutory right to paid holidays at all, yet most full-time workers have managed to preserve their entitlements, despite deregulation mania, and 84 per cent. of them get at least 20 days a year. Yet 1.7 million part-timers get no paid holiday at all, despite the fact that, as the House has heard, some of them work long hours.
All that would change if Britain were to adopt the working time directive due to come into force in November. Far from welcoming that modest civilising measure, the Government have pulled out all the stops to defeat it. First they tried to veto the directive. They failed. Now they are spending lots of taxpayers' money at the European Court arguing for the constitutional principle that national Governments should be allowed to condone whatever exploitation of their citizens they see fit, without interference from nasty foreigners. The European Court, by the way, is the institution that 77 Conservative Members last week voted to have nothing to do with.
It is not an edifying spectacle to see the party of Macleod and Macmillan, and even of Disraeli, reduced to that slavish devotion to a cruel and out-of-date economic dogma. Of course the ideological gurus of Thatcherism will oppose my Bill. The deregulators who have taken their Adam Smith a bit too literally will be lining up to denounce it.
Those people have a dream for Britain: they see us as the sweatshop of Europe, and in their delusion, they fondly imagine that we can compete and earn our way in the world by having labour costs lower than those in places such as Albania—and presumably, lower even then those in the Chinese gulag. They have a simple mantra, and we shall probably hear it chanted at us again today. They say that lower wages and worse conditions mean more jobs, while higher wages and better conditions destroy jobs—unless, of course, one happens to be Cedric Brown.
Logically, that means that no wages and no conditions would create an infinite number of jobs. Why do those people not take their policy to its logical conclusion, and reinstate slavery to solve the unemployment problem? Even Adam Smith did not think that things were that simple—but why let reality intrude on a good piece of economic dogma, even if it did cause widespread starvation and misery when it was first tried during the industrial revolution?
The classical economic dogmas that were used to oppress starving weavers and to justify the workhouse are now being applied, albeit more subtly, to the 6 million of our fellow citizens who work part-time. The ever present prospect of arbitrary treatment at work with no redress is one of the major causes of the fear and insecurity now stalking the land. It explains the non-appearance of the feel-good factor, it is unfair and inefficient, and ultimately it will destroy our competitiveness.
We can compete in a global market only on the basis of education, skill, and the real flexibility that comes from having a stake at work and in society. Rights and entitlements for all workers are a part of that, and it is time for the House to recognise the contribution of part-time workers, by granting them full-time rights.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I am grateful for the opportunity to oppose the Bill, because I maintain strongly that it is really an Unemployment (Increase) Bill. In many ways, the debate is timely, because last week the German Government announced a package of public spending cuts totalling £22 billion, and admitted that economic growth in Germany would be worse than previously expected.
One of the main objectives cited by the federal Government was a cut in non-wage labour costs. As the Financial Times reported last Friday, the German Government hope to make a big dent in their 4 million army of the unemployed by exempting many small companies from employment rules and from compulsory sick pay.
The Bill would simply add to Britain's non-wage labour costs, at a time when our competitors are fast realising that their costs are too high, and that we are at a competitive advantage because ours are lower. One look at youth unemployment proves that. In Spain, it stands at 38.2 per cent., and in France at 27.7 per cent., but in the United Kingdom it is below 14 per cent. As the hon. Lady pointed out somewhat ironically, we have one of the highest participation rates in the labour market, and the Bill would destroy that.
Like so much of what purports to be Labour party policy, the Bill is born of the mistaken notion that passing legislation can improve life just like that, without any


adverse effects. It is born of a lack of experience of how the world works. It shows no understanding of the world of work or of the world of business decision making.
It is like saying that, if I were to introduce a ten-minute Bill to make everyone a millionaire, I could in one fell swoop abolish poverty and make everyone rich. It looks at only one side of the equation, and conveniently ignores the basic truth, that anyone who wants to employ someone has to count the cost of doing so. That cost involves not only the weekly pay cheque but all the other costs, risks and obligations that legislation and commercial reality add to the basic pay packet.
It is often small companies that employ people part-time. What is paid by the employer and what is achieved by the employee are often matched penny for penny, with little room for movement. Anything that might put financial obligations on the employer that went beyond the wealth-creating, productive effort of the employee could destroy the business, and would certainly destroy the job opportunity.
At the very least, the imposition of higher non-wage labour costs would put downward pressure on the level of wages paid in hard cash by the employer to the employee in the first place. Many employers and small businesses count their pennies closely. The last thing they want as they get off the ground and struggle to grow is legal obligations such as this, that may hit them in a way they cannot predict or afford.
It was astonishing that the hon. Lady went on about slave labour, while showing no understanding of what creates job opportunities and underpins their survival. But perhaps we should not be so surprised. The Labour party's entire economic programme, such as it is, is a well-crafted platform of deceit. It talks about creating jobs, while intending to do everything in practice to destroy them. It talks about low pay, yet it would tax jobs with further burdens such as this Bill, which would lead to lower pay or joblessness. It talks of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, while wanting to introduce measures such as this, which would end up making the poor poorer still. It talks about financing mass unemployment, yet this Bill would create more unemployment and require even greater Government finance to pay for it.
The Bill is designed—and cunningly designed—to make people feel that they would be better off under Labour, when the cruel truth is that they would be thrown out of work by a party that remains anti-business and largely ignorant of it.
Where do Labour Members acquire their experience of business? From the trade unions? From their council work? From their work in the media or as lecturers? It rarely comes from the real work of wealth creation.[Interruption.] Let us consider, in the face of this barracking from Opposition Members, Labour's Front-Bench Department of Trade and Industry team. It comprises Members who at one time or another have been a policy researcher, a poverty lobbyist, a journalist, a welfare rights officer, a lecturer, a radio presenter, a National Association of Local Government Officers official, and a local authority adviser.
That those hon. Members have had no experience of government is at least explicable, but that they have had no experience of anything very much at all leaves them insultingly ill-equipped to understand the interests and mechanisms of Britain's wealth-creating sector. Take their leader, their shadow Chancellor and their absent spokesman on trade and industry; take the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle); take almost all of them—the only thing they have ever run in their lives is a bath.
The extension of full employment rights to all part-time, temporary and casual workers—a commitment included in the Labour document, "A New Economic Future for Britain"—would cost British firms an estimated £1.5 billion. That is a punitively high tax on jobs. It is a massive bill with which to saddle some of the most vulnerable, smallest and newest businesses. That is a foretaste of what would happen if there were ever to be a Labour Government.
I must say one thing to the hon. Lady and those on the Opposition Front Bench. If she and others want to make a spending commitment, let them do so honestly and openly, instead of disguising it in a Bill of this sort. It is part of the Labour party's sly attempt to raise expectations of what various groups would enjoy under Labour. It is a ploy born partly of wilful deceit and partly of staggering naivety on how the real world of business works. Those hopes would be raised only to be cruelly and cynically dashed.
Who on earth would employ a student part-time? Who would bother to take on youngsters whose opportunity in life might already have been blighted by a Labour Government's £1, 000 tax on their study for A-levels? Let us be absolutely clear about the effects of the hon. Lady's legislation. On behalf of all those whose jobs she would destroy, having first manoeuvred to buy their votes, let me make it absolutely clear that we will hound her and remind her until kingdom come that her Bill, if it ever becomes law, and the policy of the Labour party, are a comprehensive job destruction package, which would achieve the very opposite of what I hope she genuinely wants.
I urge the hon. Lady to forget the Bill, and to drop it. It is no more than a misguided act of wishful thinking that would destroy the job prospects of thousands, who deserve a far better opportunity in life than that on offer from the hon. Lady today.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Angela Eagle, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Roseanna Cunningham, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Miss Emma Nicholson and Mr. Hugh Dykes.

PART-TIME EMPLOYEES (EQUAL RIGHTS TO SICK PAY AND LEAVE)

Ms Angela Eagle accordingly presented a Bill to provide that employers give the same entitlements to sick pay and leave to their part-time staff as they do to their full-time staff: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 116]

Orders of the Day — Housing Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered

New clause 10

COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT: REMOVAL OF NEED FOR PROFESSIONAL VALUATION OF INTERESTS TO BE ACQUIRED

'In section 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (notice by qualifying tenants of claim to exercise right to collective enfranchisement) subsection (6) (tenants to obtain professional valuation of interests proposed to be acquired before giving notice) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Brought up, and read the First time

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 21 to 25.

Mr. Clappison: These amendments arise from considerations in Committee, when the Government undertook to give further consideration to the position in respect of the current statutory requirement that leaseholders in blocks of flats who want to exercise their right to collective enfranchisement must first obtain a professional valuation of the interest that they want to acquire.
The original purpose of the provision was as a safeguard for leaseholders. The process for collective enfranchisement can often be complicated, and that is especially so when a large number of leaseholders are involved. Normally, they will be required to enter together into some form of participation agreement, in order for negotiations with the freeholder to proceed. From the outset, it seems sensible that they should be informed of their likely financial commitments arising out of potential enfranchisement.
However, the Government have considered carefully the arguments that were put forward during deliberations in Committee, and we have accepted that they carry some weight. In most cases, it would still seem prudent for leaseholders to take professional advice at an early stage. However, we accept that not every case will be as complicated as others and that there should be more flexibility in the avenues open to leaseholders. For example, they may be able to take advantage of advice offered by the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service. In addition, several leasehold valuation tribunal decisions are now available and a number of groups representing leaseholders have gained substantial experience and can often help in that area.
I accept that a statutory requirement to seek an initial valuation does not apply to the enfranchisement of houses and to lease extensions. Although collective enfranchisement for blocks of flats can be more complicated, there is an anomaly in that respect. I also understand that the removal of that requirement is

supported by a number of leaseholder groups, which believe that it involves them in unnecessary expense. Therefore, the Government accept that there is a danger that the provision is over-prescriptive.
New clause 10, together with the related consequential amendments, will remove that requirement from the collective enfranchisement procedures set out in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Mr.NickRaynsford: As the Minister has made clear, new clause 10 removes the requirement of a leaseholder to obtain a valuation before he can proceed with an enfranchisement claim. This new clause is in response to a new clause that the Labour party moved in Committee, which had a similar effect. In Committee, the Minister said that he was unconvinced by the need for it, but he agreed to reflect on the issue.
We are delighted that the Government, on mature reflection, have concluded that our proposals were appropriate and that they have now come forward with this reform. We welcome it, like many other leasehold reform measures that we moved in Committee. We know that they are worth while, that they will assist leaseholders and that they will help to make a reality of leasehold enfranchisement. We shall be delighted to see this new clause added to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

New clause 11

PROVISION OF GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE ABOUT RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may give financial assistance to any person in relation to the provision by that person of general advice about—

(a) any aspect of the law of landlord and tenant, so far as relating to residential tenancies, or
(b) Chapter IV of Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement).
(2) Financial assistance under this section may be given in such form and on such terms as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The terms on which financial assistance under this section may be given may, in particular, include provision as to the circumstances in which the assistance must be repaid or otherwise made good to the Secretary of State and the manner in which that is to be done.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee, a number of hon. Members paid tribute to the work of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service. The service was established shortly after the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 came into force, with joint public and private sector


funding. Its principal role has been to provide initial information to landlords and tenants on the legislative provisions relating to leasehold enfranchisement. Since its inception, it has dealt with approximately 8, 000 inquiries.
The Government's commitment to the service has been to provide initial funding for three years, ending in December this year. That commitment will be honoured in full. The commitment was limited to three years because it was envisaged that a growing familiarity with the provisions of the Act would develop in that time. It was thought that leaseholders would be less in need of such an advice service, as a wider range of solicitors, valuers and practitioners would gain experience in that area.
However, in practice, the progress on enfranchisement has been less rapid than our initial expectations in some respects. Leaseholders have been exercising their rights to lease extension enfranchisement, and the leasehold valuation tribunals have been hearing a number of test cases and resolving disputes between landlords and tenants.
There is still a way to go and all parties are agreed that there is a useful role for an advice service to perform beyond the end of this year. A further factor is the new package of leaseholders' rights contained in the Bill. They involve new and, in some cases, necessarily complex procedures. The Government believe that there is further scope for an impartial advice service to help in that area.
The Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service has been funded for the first three years through the Department's special grants programme. Projects supported in that way are expected to generate matching private sector funding with public sector support. That funding would normally have been phased out after the initial three-year period. The purpose of the new clause is therefore to give the Secretary of State a specific power to provide financial support to an advice service dealing with landlord and tenant issues, on a more permanent footing. We shall still seek a substantial private sector contribution, but a further period of support under the special grants programme would not be appropriate.
My Department will shortly enter into detailed discussions with the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service about how it envisages the development of its longer-term role. I make no commitment that the Department will defer the funding beyond the end of 1996, but we shall consider the case of the advisory service along with the other competing claims on my Department's resources. The new clause keeps open the possibility of longer-term funding of the service.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister said, new clause 11 was tabled in response to a case made in Committee. I am pleased to say that in Committee we had all-party support on the issue. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) backed my calls on behalf of the Opposition for continuing funding of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service.
As the Minister rightly acknowledged, the service provides excellent, impartial advice to leaseholders on very complex matters relating to leasehold enfranchisement, and it receives an increasing number of requests for help on aspects that are currently outside its remit. There is, therefore, a case for not only continuous funding for the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service, but a wider remit to enable it to deal with other leasehold matters, especially disputes relating to service charges and so on, which cause a great deal of concern to leaseholders and about which requests for help are made to the service.
As the Minister acknowledged, leasehold enfranchisement has not progressed as fast as the Government initially hoped. Whatever the reasons—some of which we shall explore in later debates—there is agreement on both sides of the House that we should assist enfranchisement. The provision of expert advisory services is a very important way of doing so.
The costs involved in obtaining expert assistance from lawyers and other professionals can be a very serious deterrent to leaseholders, and the availability of a free, expert service is, in my view and that of most people who have studied the matter, essential if the process of leasehold enfranchisement is to proceed. We shall explore other essential issues in later debates.
For all those reasons, we very much welcome the Government's decision to table the new clause. The Minister was cautious in what he said about how it may be applied. I understand that he cannot give a cast-iron commitment, but he is aware that, under current arrangements, the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service does not have funding beyond the end of this year—a period of only eight months.
It is unreasonable for such a service, which provides valuable expertise to numerous leaseholders, to be unable to guarantee its continued operation more than eight months ahead. I hope that the Minister will move swiftly to enter the discussions that he described.

Mr. David Ashby: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that later amendments relate to further enfranchisement, about which more advice will be required. That makes the service even more important.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Not only is financial uncertainty hanging over the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service, but the service is likely to have rather more work if, as a result of our considerations today, we substantially advance the opportunities for enfranchisement.
For all those reasons, I urge the Minister to enter into discussions urgently with all the parties, to try to ensure that the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service has the necessary financial resources to maintain its service in the immediately foreseeable future and build on a stronger financial footing for the long term.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be brief. My constituents enter on both sides of the equation, as advisers and advisees. I declared a tangential and anticipatory interest in Committee, and I declare the same interest now.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the speed with which the Government have reacted. I only serve quiet notice that we shall maintain vigilance on the conduct of and developments in the conversations.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: I welcome the Minister's commitment to examining the problem. In Committee, we expressed our appreciation of the valuable work done by the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service. I am only disappointed that the question whether and when it will definitely be funded remains open-ended. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter and come back to us as soon as possible. There is all-party support, and he is aware that people need advice desperately.
Hon. Members have pointed out that more advice will be sought in the future. As the costs and difficulties associated with often very complicated legal matters increase, people will need a proper advice service. I urge the Minister not to let the matter slide—although I am sure that hon. Members will ensure that he does not.

Government new schedule 2—Low rent test: extension of rights—

Right to enfranchisement

1. In the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, after section 1A there shall be inserted—
Additional right to enfranchisement only in case of houses whose4 rent exceeds applicable limit under section 4.

1AA.—(1) Where—
(a) section 1(1) above would apply in the case of the tenant of a house but for the fact that the tenancy is not a tenancy at a low rent, and
(b) the tenancy falls within subsection (2) below and is not an excluded tenancy,
this Part of this Act shall have effect to confer on the tenant the same right to acquire the freehold of the house and premises as would be conferred by section 1(1) above if it were a tenancy at a low rent.

(2) A tenancy falls within this subsection if—
(a) it is granted for a term of years certain exceeding fifty years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise,
(b) it is for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal, unless it is a tenancy by sub-demise from one which is not a tenancy which falls within this subsection,
(c) it is a tenancy taking effect under section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leases terminable after a death or marriage), or
(d) it is a tenancy which—
(i) is or has been granted for a term of years certain not exceeding fifty years, but with a covenant or obligation for renewal without payment of a premium (but not for perpetual renewal), and
(ii) is or has been once or more renewed so as to bring to more than fifty years the total of the terms granted (including any interval between the end of a tenancy and the grant of a renewal).

(3) A tenancy is an excluded tenancy for the purposes of subsection (1) above if—
(a) the house which the tenant occupies under the tenancy is in an area designated for the purposes of this provision as a rural area by order made by the Secretary of State,
(b) the freehold of that house is owned together with adjoining land which is not occupied for residential purposes, and
(c) the tenancy was granted on or before the day on which section [Low rent test: extension of rights] of the Housing Act 1996 comes into force.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 21

LOW RENT TEST: EXTENSION OF RIGHTS

'. Schedule [Low rent test: extension of rights] (which makes provision for conferring an additional right to enfranchisement in relation to tenancies which fail the low rent test and for introducing an alternative to the low rent test in the case of the right of collective enfranchisement and the right to a new lease) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 152.

(4) Where this Part of this Act applies as if there were a single tenancy of property comprised in two or more separate tenancies, then, if each of the separate tenancies falls within subsection (2) above, this section shall apply as if the single tenancy did so.

(5) The power to make an order under subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

2.—(1) In consequence of paragraph 1 above, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section l(3A)(b) (extension of rights not to apply to existing lettings by charitable housing trusts), after "1A" there shall be inserted ", 1AA".

(3) In section 3(3) (provision for aggregation of successive tenancies), after "this Part of this Act" there shall be inserted ", except section 1AA, ".

(4) In section 9(1C) (price payable by tenant on enfranchisement by virtue of section 1A or 1B), after "1A" there shall be inserted ", 1AA".

(5) In section 9A(1) (compensation payable where right to enfranchisement arises by virtue of section 1A or 1B), after "1A" there shall be inserted ", 1AA".

(6) In section 32A(1) (b) (extensions to right to enfranchisement not to apply in relation to existing tenancies of property transferred for public benefit), at the end there shall be inserted "or if section 1AA above were not in force".

(7) In section 37(4) (treatment for the purposes of Part I of tenancy granted to continue as a periodical tenancy after the expiration of a term of years certain), after this Part of this Act" there shall be inserted ", except section 1AA, ".

(8) In Part II of Schedule 3 (procedural provisions), in paragraph 6 (which makes provision about the contents of a tenant's notice under Part I), after sub-paragraph

(1) there shall be inserted—

"(1A) Where the tenant gives the notice by virtue of section 1AA of this Act, sub-paragraph (1) above shall have effect with the substitution for paragraph (b) of—

"(b) such particulars of the tenancy as serve to identify the instrument creating the tenancy and show that the tenancy is one in relation to which section 1AA(1) of this Act has effect to confer a right to acquire the freehold of the house and premises;"."

(9) In that Part of that Schedule, in paragraph 7(4) (admission in landlord's notice of tenant's right to have freehold to be binding on landlord, so far as relating to matters mentioned in section l(l)(a) and (b)), for "mentioned in section l(l)(a) and (b) of this Act" there shall be substituted "relevant to the existence of that right".

Right to collective enfranchisement

3.—(1) Chapter I of Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (collective enfranchisement in case of tenants of flats) shall be amended as follows.

(2) Section 5 (qualifying tenants) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1) (which defines a qualifying tenant as a tenant of a flat under a long lease at a low rent), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term", and
(b) in subsection (2)(c) (which excludes from the definition a tenant under a lease granted in breach of the terms of a superior lease which is not a long lease at a low rent), after "rent" there shall be inserted "or for a particularly long term".

(3) After section 8 there shall be inserted—
Meaning of "particularly long term

8A.—(1) For the purposes of this Chapter a long lease is for a long term if—

(a) it is granted for a term of years certain exceeding 50 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise,
(b) it is for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal (other than a lease by sub- demise from one which is not for a particularly long term),
(c) it takes effect under section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leases terminable after a death or marriage), or
(d) it is a lease which—

(i) is or has been granted for a term of years certain not exceeding 50 years, but with a covenant or obligation for renewal without payment of a premium (but not for perpetual renewal), and



(ii) is or has been renewed on one or more occasions so as to bring to more than 50 years the total of the terms granted (including any interval between the end of a lease and the grant of a renewal).

(2) A long lease which does not fall within subsection (1) above shall nonetheless be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as being for a particularly long term if it is a long lease by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d) of section 7(1).

(3) Where this Chapter applies as if there were a single lease of property comprised in two or more separate leases, then, if each of the separate leases is for a particularly long term, this Chapter shall apply as if the single lease were for such a term."

(4) In section 13(3)(e) (particulars to be included in initial notice which relevant to whether person a qualifying tenant), in sub-paragraph (ii), for "a lease at a low rent" there shall be substituted "at a low rent or for a particularly long term".

Right to new lease

4.—(1) Chapter II of that Part (individual right of tenant of flat to acquire new lease) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 39(3) (provisions of Chapter I which apply for the purposes of Chapter II), at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted ", and
(d) section 8A, ".

(3) In section 42(3) (particulars to be included in notice by qualifying tenant of claim to exercise right), in paragraph (b) (iii), there shall be inserted at the end "or, in accordance with section 8A (as that section so applies), a lease for a particularly long term".

5.—(1) In Chapter VII of that Part (general), section 94 (Crown land) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3) (disapplication of restriction imposed by section 3(2) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 on term for which lease may be granted by Crown Estate Commissioners), in paragraph (a), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term".

(3) In subsection (4) (power to shadow statutory rights), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term".

(4) For subsection (12) there shall be substituted—
(12) For the purposes of this section "long lease which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term" shall be construed in accordance with sections 7, 8 and 8A.".'

And the following amendments thereto: (a), in line 9, leave out from 'tenancy' to 'is'.

(b) in line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 34.
(c) in line 47, leave out from beginning to 'this'.
(d) in line 82, leave out from beginning to end. Government amendment No. 153.

Mr. Gummer: The new clause and amendments deal with the qualifying condition for enfranchisement rights, either under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 concerning houses or under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 concerning flats. I have a particular interest in that area, both as Minister responsible for London and because reference was made in debate to the particular, and some would say peculiar, circumstances of rural areas such as the one that I represent.
The policy has been to give enfranchisement rights to leaseholders who might be regarded as owner-occupiers. That policy lies at the heart of the discussions: how does one distinguish between those who are leaseholders, as one understands that term, and those who may be leaseholders in the sense that they hold a lease but who have been paying a proper market rent as tenants would?

In such cases, the lease is a matter of convenience between them and the landlord. It may well have been chosen by either side, or by both sides, at some past date.
Two tests establish whether the leaseholder is an owner-occupier. First, there is the length of the lease, which should generally be more than 21 years. Secondly, the tenant must pay only a nominal ground rent rather than a market rent. If those two conditions are satisfied, except during the final years of the lease, the tenant is likely to have a greater financial stake in the property than the landlord.
There has always been a low-rent test. It was a mechanism for distinguishing between the real leaseholder—I use the word "real" in the sense of the person whom we understand to be the leaseholder—and someone who has a lease but who is a tenant in all other respects. The form differs slightly according to the circumstances, but it generally requires that the rent should be less than two thirds of the rateable value of the property. The purpose of the test is to distinguish in the way that I have suggested.
There are always arguments about how one establishes such a figure, and discussions at every stage have sought to arrive at a sensible position regarding leasehold enfranchisement. There were heated discussions about the principle—and particularly about the mechanisms by which one establishes that principle.
An amendment was carried in Committee, to remove the low-rent test. That decision was based not on the idea that renting tenants should be given enfranchisement rights, but on the fact that the low-rent test has caused difficulties in practice. In other words, I do not think that people sought to give enfranchisement to those who manifestly were not, in common parlance, leaseholders of the sort that we are describing. They felt, perfectly reasonably, that the present mechanism for distinguishing between the two types of leaseholder is faulty and occasionally leads to anomalies and sometimes to downright hardship.
There are leases where the rent is technically above the low-rent limit, but is closer to being a nominal ground rent than a rack rent. In some cases, that has arisen by accident, perhaps because properties were not revalued for rating purposes between 1973 and the end of the rating system in 1990, although ground rents crept up slightly in line with inflation. In other cases, some landlords intentionally set rents slightly above the limit. The discussions in Committee were directed at those very people. That is why I accepted the arguments in Committee for reform.
4.15 pm
The test currently excludes some tenancies, which, on any reading of the previous legislation, should enjoy enfranchisement rights.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State now tell the House how many such tenancies exist?

Mr. Gummer: I cannot say exactly how many there are, but later in my speech I shall tell the hon. Gentleman the precise percentage of tenancies that the measure is intended to cover. I am sure that he will be happy about that, but he must listen to my proposal.

Mr. Ashby: Does a long lease at a rack rent exist? In my understanding, there is no such thing.

Mr. Gummer: I have to tell my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, that on this occasion, he is wrong. He must not believe that because I cannot tell him how many elephants there are in Africa, there are no elephants in Africa. That is not a reasonable argument. There are such leases. To put it simply, if there were not, my hon. Friend would have no worries, as everything that he seeks would be achieved. There are such leases and it is only reasonable to deal with them equitably. In the same mode in which I have approached the whole issue, I am seeking merely to achieve equity. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Mr. Ashby: On equity, does my right hon. Friend consider it right that there should be different forms of long lease? Is it not fair for one group of long leaseholders to be treated the same as the other? That is equity.

Mr. Gummer: If my hon. Friend had followed the argument, he would know that that depends on the nature of the leaseholding. If, to all intents and purposes, a long leaseholder is an owner-occupier who pays a ground rent, that is one class of leaseholder. Other long leaseholders

pay a full tenant's rent. They are not leaseholders in the sense that he and I understand it or those to whom many of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) referred—leaseholders who, for one reason or another, are excluded from the enfranchisement legislation. My proposal relates to those people.

Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association has enormous experience of enfranchisement. It has represented leaseholders for many years and has done stalwart work to advance enfranchisement. Mrs. Joan South, the secretary of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association, wrote to me as follows:
In our organisation we have never come across a single 'long' lease that has anything like a market rent.
If the Secretary of State cannot tell us how many such properties exist, will he accept the verdict of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association that it is a chimera, not reality?

Mr. Gummer: I wish to make three points to the hon. Gentleman. First, I have made my way through complicated legislation on a whole range of matters, including all the detailed problems of agricultural tenancies and the like, and I have learnt that anyone who suggests that circumstances cannot arise is usually wrong. Such complications need to be considered extremely carefully, and one needs to recognise that even those with experience may well find that their experience is almost entirely with people who see themselves as long leaseholders of the sort with which the Bill is concerned. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that those who never have seen themselves as long leaseholders and have always seen themselves as full-blown tenants who happen to have a long lease would not be in touch with the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not find that surprising.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I wish to give the hon. Gentleman the three reasons, because it is important to face them.
The second reason is as follows. Let us say that I am entirely mistaken. If so, no harm is done because those few people who may be in that position will find themselves properly protected, and those who are not—I am told by the hon. Gentleman that they are the vast majority, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) said that there are only three or four in the first position—

Mr. Raynsford: There is none.

Mr. Gummer: However small the number is, I do not find it possible to believe that they will be disadvantaged. It is possible for a reasonable relationship between landlord and tenant to be entered into, in which the landlord decides that he would like to have a long lease and gives a long lease in permanence to a tenant, who is then responsible for renovations and who pays the full market rent—not a ground rent, not even a pseudo-ground


rent, nor even a bit above ground rent—as a tenant. That is all that we suggest, and I cannot see that that is a disadvantage.
My third reason is that it is very important that we should recognise that there are other areas, outside the centre of London, which are thus affected. Some of those areas are in the country and, for large estates in particular, it is part of how they operate to have long leases for proper tenants who are seen as tenants. Happily, continuity still reigns in many of those estates and the long leases are seen as a means of maintaining continuity. I would therefore like to protect those people in particular, and I think that there is no disagreement about them across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Secretary of State will know from studying our amendments, we accept entirely the position on rural areas. We shall debate later an amendment that makes provision for that, because there are genuine problems that we are keen to address. As for the notional existence of long leases at a market rent for which the Secretary of State is making special provisions and creating a new 50-year test in new clause 21, there is no evidence for them. The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association says that it has no evidence, but it has brought substantial evidence of people who will be disadvantaged by the 50-year test that the Secretary of State proposes. Would not it be sensible to reconsider?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must listen to me when I come to the 50-year test. In contradistinction to the views that he has put forward, those who represent the landlords suggest that there are significant numbers in the long-lease category. All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that it would be better, when considering such matters, to consider them from the point of view of equity. I was brought up to believe that if one person was accounted just, he should not suffer for all the 90 and nine who were not. If that is the case, we should have a system that includes even a small number of cases. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire has said that there are only three or four cases—I believe that all the evidence points to many more—but even if that were so, we should take account of them.
Perhaps it would be better sometimes for people to have the confidence of a long lease even if they were full-blown tenants. To exclude or discourage that option would be a pity. The hon. Gentleman has not so far objected to the principle, but fears the 50-year term. I shall come to that aspect in a moment. I want to establish that we are trying to enfranchise real leaseholders and that it is not unreasonable to distinguish between them and tenants who have a long lease. That distinction is not new, but is found in both the previous substantive pieces of legislation, which introduced a low-rent test to make the distinction. It would be odd if we were suddenly to discover that provision is not needed because no such tenants exist. Landlords believe that they do and have cited examples, so it does not seem unreasonable to make appropriate provision—and to examine the disadvantages of doing so.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): Lest my right hon. Friend be discouraged by constant criticisms and questions, people such as myself complained in respect of the 1993 legislation that while good landlords, such as the

Duke of Westminster, were being protected by enfranchisement, a large number of retirement leaseholders in properties built by companies such as McCarthy and Stone and others were excluded. It appears that the Government are now proposing that long leases for retirement leaseholders will have the same advantages as other leases. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as that is the case, the Bill is a major step forward and will give rights to tenants who were previously unfairly excluded?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I have considerable sympathy with the need to enfranchise retirement leaseholders. There are a number of retirement developments in my constituency—as I share with my hon. Friend the clement weather and pleasurable areas of East Anglia, to which many people go to retire and to whom a protected lease is important. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that there is a distinction between the person who buys accommodation but on a lease, for the obvious reasons in such circumstances, and the person who has a long lease but pays a normal tenancy rent. Everyone has sought to make that distinction year after year. Labour has produced the entirely novel concept that such tenants do not exist. If that is so, why did Labour suggest such a distinction in its legislation and support that distinction in later legislation?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Duke of Westminster is one of the finest landlords in the country? He is marvellous at maintaining his properties and does not charge exorbitant rents. The duke went to great trouble some years ago to ensure that he was allowed to keep properties in London to let to people described as working-class tenants—which he does at considerable financial cost to himself.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we must be careful not to suggest that the word "landlord" equates with a bad landlord. There are many good landlords in London, but they are not helped by the activities of the kind of person for whom the Bill is primarily designed. There are bad landlords and freeholders, and many of them have recently entered the business. They view their involvement not as a long-term commitment to a part of a city, as do the Westminster or Cadogan estates, but as a means of providing income in ways never envisaged by the freeholding system.
That is why I personally took the decision that this part of the Bill should include protection. As the Minister responsible for London, I could see how damaging the absence of such protection could be. All that I am trying to introduce is equity. We need to protect people from the activities of poor landlords—or downright bad landlords—but in a way that respects the excellence of the good ones, not least because there is much to be said for encouraging them. One of the problems from which the nation as a whole has suffered is the way in which landlords have been discouraged because there has not been a distinction between the good and the bad. That is what I am trying to do in the new clause.

Mr. Ashby: I understand what my right hon. Friend is trying to do, but does he not accept that he is turning existing laws upside down? Why not introduce a


paragraph into the schedule, perhaps in another place, to say that, where the rent on a long lease approximates to the rent, so that a rent officer would establish that, such a test would be absolutely fair, because that is a rack rent? We could say that, if it was within 20 per cent. of a rent that a rent officer would fix for the premises, it would be excluded from enfranchisement. That would deal with the matter.

Mr. Gummer: We have tried all sorts of mixes and they have not stood the test of time. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend will see—if I am allowed to proceed a little, on the mixture of things that I propose—that what we propose is a helpful way in which to deal with the problem that he sees.
Some leases of more than 25 years have rack rents, and in those cases the tenant's stake has never been anywhere near as significant as that of the landlord. Some landlords, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)—who is still with us but, rather confusingly, has moved to another seat—referred, wish to let properties for rent. They want to give tenants a substantial period of security, and there is no reason why they should not do so. Indeed, there is every reason to make that possible. So it is a question not only of their present number, but of the possibility of having them in the future. Those leases run for 25 to 35 years at market rents, and we need to recognise that we have responsibilities on both sides.
I want to try to take seriously the argument on which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) previously justified enfranchisement, taken from the 1966 White Paper, that the land belongs in equity to the landowner and the house belongs in equity to the leaseholder. That equity would not apply where the rent is a market rent. The Government's new clause, offered as an alternative to the current clause 95, allows tenants with leases of more than 50 years to qualify for enfranchisement rights, irrespective of the rent paid. The first thing that we do is remove the need for a low-rent test when one has such a lease. That applies both to houses and to flats. Those tenants will have to pay a fair market price if they wish to exercise their rights, on the same basis as houses and flats that became enfranchiseable as a result of the 1993 legislation.
Why 50 years? The fundamental purpose is to make the distinction that we have agreed needs to be made. Most leases are for 99 years or more. When we say 50 years, we are referring to the original length of the lease, not the time that it has to run. Leases were so long—99 years or more—because that was the only way in which people could get a mortgage. Properties would not have been mortgageable if they had had a shorter lease. Therefore, conventional mortgages were almost impossible to obtain on properties when the length of the lease was less than 60 or 70 years. If freeholders wanted to sell a property that had what one would call a proper lease, the lease was bound to be for such a length. Our amendment means that the great majority of leaseholders would no longer need to be concerned about the low-rent test.
The hon. Member for Greenwich—quite reasonably—is concerned about numbers. The great majority of leases of 50 years or less—the percentage is in the high 90s—

constitute a specialist market: because they are not mortgageable in normal circumstances, they are usually sold only to cash buyers or to those who can raise bank finance. Such leases are found on some London estates, and sometimes in rural areas, where they are granted as part of a management strategy for looking after a farming estate. The terms vary considerably. Some will be at low rents, while in other instances the figures will be much closer to the full market rent. They are often granted where property is very expensive, and a shorter lease more similar to renting than full ownership may suit some purchasers.
The hon. Member for Greenwich has tabled amendments to my new schedule that would allow all leases of more than 21 years to enfranchise. The issue between the hon. Gentleman and me therefore concerns a relatively small number of leases with a length of between 21 and 50 years when granted. I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not now wish to extend the arrangement to the countryside, recognising that there are special circumstances there. Let me point out, however, that many of the considerations that make both of us not unhappy with what happens in the countryside—I am trying to put this in as unbiased a way as possible—could apply in towns. I think that that ought to be so, and that it would be better if such an arrangement were more widely used.

Mr. Raynsford: Like me, the Secretary of State will have received representations from the Country Landowners Association. It specifically points out that arrangements in the countryside essentially revolve around agricultural arrangements. Where are those arrangements likely to be replicated in London?

Mr. Gummer: I was trying to suggest that what the arrangements essentially revolve round is the need for continuity felt by many estate owners. I do not think that that need for continuity is to be found only in agricultural contexts. I do not disagree with those who want what some large landowners have—the ability to let, not sell, an albeit limited number of properties to real tenants at market rents. Letting such properties on a long lease will confer the continuity that owners of historic estates want in regard to tenants: they are looking not to one generation or even two, but back to many generations and forward to many more. I do not see why we should consider that inequitable; I think that it is rather a good idea, and I do not want to exclude it. Although I am a member of the Country Landowners Association, I am not bound by its view that all the arrangements must revolve around agriculture, horticulture or Welwyn Garden City.

Mr. Raynsford: I accept, inevitably, that we are not bound by the CLA's views. I am simply trying to establish—and I invite the Secretary of State to agree with me—that there is a fundamental difference between the circumstances applying in rural and agricultural communities and those applying in cities. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in its evidence to us, the CLA states:
The reasons that surround the letting of houses on farms and estates on long leases are very different from the position in urban areas, where the leasehold system is widespread and akin to a business in its own right.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?

Mr. Gummer: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to fall out with me. What the CLA has said is


perfectly reasonable, but I suggest that what I have said is also reasonable. I have said that the existence of additional reasons why the arrangements are necessary in country areas does not mean that one aspect that is important in the country—continuity, and the wish for continuity that is so much part of long-established estates—should not be replicated in similarly long-established estates in the centre of London. I do not think that there is any difference between us in that regard: I think that my view is perfectly reasonable.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The ability of the great estates in London to maintain continuity, which is so important to them, is entirely dependent on the financial contributions of their leaseholders. Such continuity surely denies equal continuity to leaseholders and their being able to pass on, in the words of the Prime Minister, what they own to their own. Such an ability is at present denied to leaseholders.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady must not have been present for all my speech or she would have heard me address precisely that. She and I disagree on almost everything on this earth, and I am right in almost every case. She must accept it from me that it is no good coming into the House, gathering together her prejudices, and assuming that I have said what I have not said. I have in fact said the opposite to that which she assumed, and I am sorry that what has so far been a reasonable debate has been changed by her.

Ms Jackson: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I will not give way to the hon. Lady if she cannot debate reasonably. We are trying to discuss a fundamental issue. I have spent about 25 minutes trying to explain a crucial issue, and it is not helpful to the House to go over it again.
The real question is the 50 years and whether it is a sensible figure. I am trying to be as helpful as I can to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to Opposition Members. I took the 50 years from the tax legislation, so it is a natural break point, although I accept that it is not as significant as 21 years is in landlord and tenant legislation. It was suggested on Report during the passage of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, but I am not absolutely wedded to it.
My right hon. Friends the Members for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and for Chelsea, and my hon. Friends who represent some other constituencies in central London, may wish to argue for a slight change. I shall happily look at any evidence. Although I would not say that the matter concerns no areas outside central London, it concerns almost entirely the centre of London, because only there were such shorter leases with real leaseholders possible. Elsewhere, the mortgageability of the place demanded a longer lease and there were fewer people who could buy relatively expensive properties on a cash basis.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: I am particularly pleased at my right hon. Friend's flexibility on the 50 years, which is important. I think that he recognises that the 50 years is an arbitrary figure and that it might be better if it were slightly lower. Whatever it should be, it should be pitched so that it enables the maximum number of people to benefit from the legislation. That

could mean 45 years, so I am very grateful that my right hon. Friend has expressed his willingness to be flexible and to consider changes.

Mr. Gummer: As I said, I should like to look carefully at the examples. In setting the period at 50 years, we are dealing with up to 90 per cent. of cases. I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that I do not want to exclude people. I am trying to do what previous legislation has sought to do, but—many of us feel—has not achieved. I am trying to find a way in which one can make a distinction between the leaseholder who is in our sense a real leaseholder, the sort of person to whom the hon. Member for Hampstead referred—

Ms Glenda Jackson: And Highgate.

Mr. Gummer: —the sort of person to whom the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) referred. If she had been present, she would have heard that I was trying to distinguish, as Labour as well as Conservative legislation has tried to do, between such real leaseholders and the sort of person who is affected by a long lease in a wholly different way, because he is a full-time tenant in the sense that he pays full rent, and the lease is long because it gives continuity and stability.
I want to meet the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, so I hope that he will be happy with what I have done. I do not think that there is any longer any disagreement about rural areas.
If the House accepts the amendments, some consequential amendments will have to be made. In particular, there will need to be an opportunity for landlords to apply for estate management schemes, to cover properties that become newly enfranchised as a result of the changes. The Government will bring forward the necessary amendments in another place. I shall be able to consider at that time any suggestions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members.
I hope that the House recognises that, in the proposals and with the flexibility that I am offering, I have sought to reach a reasonable solution on a very complicated matter. I have sought in a spirit of compromise to find an answer. I took issue with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate because the accusations that she flung at me were exactly the opposite of what I said. I want to enfranchise all those who are real leaseholders, precisely for the reasons that she raised. I do not want to consider all landlords as bad landlords. Nor do I want to ignore landlords who have shown themselves to be not only poor. but thoroughly bad.
As the Minister with responsibility for London and because I recognised the concern, I was the one who proposed the change to the Bill. I hope that the House will accept that the compromise will meet the overwhelming range of worries, and at the same time the good freeholder, who does his job properly—the good landlord who has proper tenants and wants them to have a long lease—will be protected in equity.

Mr. Ashby: It would be churlish of me if I were not to say how grateful I am that the Government have tabled the new clauses and the new schedule, following as they do the decision in Committee. The Committee was very


good, interesting and genial, and there was much agreement in it. On the other hand, we give with one hand and we take away with another. I find that very worrying.
As a deselected Member, who cannot expect to be in the next Parliament, I feel much freer to talk about political matters than others. I am conscious that we are talking about people who often own fairly expensive property and may well be expected to prop up a Conservative majority in a future Conservative Government. It struck me that not only would it be wrong for the Government not to agree in principle with my point, but they would shoot themselves in the foot if they did not. I want to put that warning across.
We are talking about abolishing the low-rent test. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will listen to me, as I hope to be constructive. The new clause goes only half way. It follows the wrong line of reasoning. Leases of 21 years and above have always been accepted—it is enshrined in principle and in law—as long leases, and that is all that we have to think about and maintain.
I am not one who would knock a landlord. Increasingly, through the policies of my right hon. Friend and the Government, the rented sector is expanding. It is a very buoyant sector, and I support it unreservedly. There is absolutely no reason why anybody should not establish that he wants to grant someone—if a nice family, whom he has known for a long time, wants to live in a property permanently—a long lease of 25 years at a rack rent. There is no reason why he should not do that for 30 or 40 years, or why he should not let it pass to the children at a rack rent.
One would have to find several things in such a lease, such as regular rent reviews, and one would expect the rack rent or the rent being paid to be slightly—not a long way—behind the market rent. The rent might be five or 10 years behind, according to rent reviews, which is to the advantage to the tenant of a long lease. There will undoubtedly also be such features in the long lease as provisions covering maintenance and alterations to property, allowing the tenant to make certain alterations. Many of those leases would cover derelict property, expecting the tenant to bring it up to standard before he starts paying rent. One finds such situations with a long lease, and we should be wholly supportive of them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to examine and to deal with the matter, but he is starting at the wrong end of it. He is putting 50 years on to the lease and turning the law upside down. That is absolutely the wrong way in which to go about it, and I beg him to consider the matter again.
The matter is complicated, but it is not beyond the wit of all the officials sitting in the Box over there to produce clauses that will describe precisely and exactly the type of tenancy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants to protect. He will know that that is a possibility, because a paragraph in new schedule 2 could introduce the provision that it would be a defence to an enfranchisement for a freeholder to allege that it is a tenancy not covered by the low-rent test but a proper tenancy at a market rent.
The freeholder would be able to give evidence of rents for property on either side of his property and for similar properties in the area. The same type of procedure would be

adopted as that for the application for enfranchisement. He would be able to produce such evidence and show that it might not be quite the market rent, but it may be within 20 or 30 per cent. of it. He would be able to show that it is not a tenancy that falls within the type of tenancy to be franchised. That is the way in which to go about this matter.
What we are doing is talking percentages—possibly 90-plus percentages—on the basis that some landlords have been talking about tenancies that match what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has talked about, but, "No, we cannot produce any numbers." The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) referred to the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association. We cannot throw aside such people, as has been suggested, and say, "These people do not know what they are talking about." These people—such as lawyers—are knowledgeable about the property market.
I have never come across a tenancy such as that described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that such tenancies could be created—anything can be created in a legal document—but they are not the norm. It is no good legislating for a handful of people when there will be so much inequity for the majority. As I said in my intervention, one must be equitable about this. We cannot treat one lot of people differently from another. One cannot say, "I am going to give it to you, but I am not going to give it to you."
People have written to me about the issue. Having, in Committee, voted on the matter with the Opposition, I have had many marvellous letters from people. It was heartening to receive such letters—only to find that those people's hopes will be dashed. I feel that we are letting people down—our own people and all sorts of people. I believe that we are absolutely wrong about this issue.
I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is flexible about the 50-year issue, but I beg him to be more flexible—or I beg him to be inflexible. I beg him to examine what is a long lease, which is 21 years, and then to redefine the exclusions and say, "These long leases are not covered by this section." He is absolutely right that it would be totally inequitable if we were to allow enfranchisement in cases in which there is a landlord who is genuinely trying to help people and genuinely letting property at close to the rack rent. As I said, the rent will be close and will not be absolutely up to the market rent because, by its very nature, it will be a few years behind.
Let us protect leaseholders. Why not table new clauses to protect them? I beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to play around with the issue—because this is playing around. When one gives something with one hand and takes it away with another, one creates real enemies and a great deal of unhappiness. We found that to be true on a number of occasions. Legislation that comes into effect in two or three years' time gives time for opposition to mount. It would be wrong, and totally inequitable, to give with one hand and to take away with the other.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary has my agreement entirely on his reasoning, but I beg him to re-examine the issue. I ask him to go back to the standard that we all now accept: it is equitable, just and right that a 21-year lease is a long lease. We must maintain that period; we cannot take it away. There will be cases when there is a form of lease that should be protected from enfranchisement, and that is what we must protect. Let us get down to it and define that, because the schedule and new clauses do not.

Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), who spoke movingly about the problems that will be created if the Government's new schedule is passed without amendment, and who also has done a great service to leaseholders by his brave decision to support in Committee our amendment to remove the low-rent test.
In speaking to this group of new clauses and new schedule, I should like in particular to explain why we have tabled the amendments (a) to (d) to new schedule 2, about which I should say two things immediately.
First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you and to Madam Speaker for allowing the starred amendments to be debated today. The Government gave us an undertaking that they would table their amendments to appear on last Thursday's Order Paper, to allow us time to prepare our amendments to them. That of course was necessary because of the amendments' immense complexity, as all hon. Members understand about leasehold amendments. Unfortunately, the Government—for reasons beyond the Minister's control—were not able to honour that undertaking. Therefore, the new schedule appeared too late for us to be able to table amendments to it that would be in order without being starred. I am grateful to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration—who is not in the Chamber—for agreeing that we should approach Madam Speaker, asking that those amendments be taken today.
Secondly, I should explain to the House that, I am afraid, the gremlins have got at schedule new schedule 2. If hon. Members study it closely, they will discover that, in the numbers down the left-hand side, there is a gap of seven rather than five lines between numbers 10 and 15. Any assiduous hon. Member who is trying to follow where our amendments to the new schedule should fit in will, therefore, find himself in some difficulty if he follows the numbers as printed. I advise hon. Members to assume that the right line comes two before the number printed, from number 15 onwards. I hope that that will be helpful to hon. Members in understanding the technical details, although I shall explain in much more detail why, in our view, the amendments are essential.
5 pm
We are dealing with one of the crucial—indeed, one of the defining—issues that the House must resolve if leaseholding enfranchisement is to proceed as an effective policy for the benefit of the hundreds of thousands of leaseholders who long to own the freehold of their homes. In theory at least, there is political unanimity on the merits of the policy of enfranchisement. The then Labour Government introduced the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which gave large numbers of leaseholders in houses the opportunity to buy the freehold and so, in many cases, to avoid the fear of homelessness on the expiry of their lease. The Act was unquestionably a great success.
The present Government introduced the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which aimed to give similar rights to leaseholders in flats to buy the freehold of their homes collectively. When he moved the enfranchisement provisions in Committee, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, spoke of the inherent problems of the leasehold framework. I should like to quote his words because it is important that the House should be aware of the Government's policy, as stated in 1992. He said:

there are two substantial disadvantages with leasehold tenure. First, a lease is a wasting asset. The value of the leaseholder's interest declines inexorably as the term expires. At times of rapidly rising house prices, such as the 1980s, that decline may have been offset by inflation, but in the longer term the value of a leasehold flat falls. That poses a particular problem for the majority of people who must buy their flats with a mortgage.
Leasehold as a form of tenure sits uneasily with today's financial regime for funding owner-occupation. Lenders normally insist that the unexpired term of a lease is at least double the length of the mortgage, so that there is adequate security throughout its term. However, that means that leasehold properties become increasingly difficult to mortgage—and hence to sell—once the lease becomes less than perhaps 60 years. So a 99-year lease, which might have cost the same as a freehold, may be tradeable for only 20 or 30 years before its value begins to fall quite sharply. There is a market for fag-end leases in central London among cash buyers, but that is not typical.
Secondly, control of the property remains with the freeholder. That is a particular problem with flats. Although those living in the flats will have effectively paid for the building and are responsible for all the costs of upkeep and insurance, they are in the hands of a freeholder who has only a small residual interest. Increasingly, freeholds and reversionary head leases are coming into the hands of speculators and people with short-term interests who seek to maximise returns. They do not have the long-term interests in the property and the tenants shown by the best of the remaining old-style paternalistic landlords. Those problems are at their worst where direct conflicts of interests occur between the freeholder on the one hand and the leaseholder on the other.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 10 November 1992; c. 31–32.]
Having spelt out the inherent disadvantages, the Minister made it clear that the Government's policy was to move away from leasehold as a form of tenure.
In a subsequent sitting of the Committee, the Minister said emphatically:
The Bill is carefully structured so that not everybody has the right to a new lease. Its purpose is to move away from leasehold as a form of tenure, and that is why its thrust is towards encouraging enfranchisement rather than leasehold extension."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 November 1992; c. 73.]
That was a clear commitment to leasehold enfranchisement. At that stage, it was expected that the Government would introduce a commonhold Bill to create the new tenure of commonhold, which would be similar to the Australian strata title system, under which people living in flats could own their home individually and the whole block collectively, thereby getting out of the landlord-tenant relationship which has proved a bugbear in much of the leasehold system.
Sadly, that Bill has not yet materialised, despite considerable pressure from many hon. Members on both sides of the House and the efforts of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), who introduced a private Member's Bill earlier this year with the objective of achieving commonhold. She had the misfortune of seeing it talked out on Second Reading by hon. Members on her own side of the House.
While there has been no progress on commonhold, the hopes for extensive enfranchisement which arose from the 1993 Act have generally been disappointed. The Secretary of State conceded in an earlier intervention that the number of people enfranchising was fewer than had been hoped for. Only a limited number of leaseholders in flats have to date successfully negotiated the process of enfranchisement and acquired the freehold of their home. That does not reflect a lack of interest on the part of leaseholders. On the contrary, to my knowledge, hundreds


of thousands of leaseholders would love to buy the freehold of their home, but are frustrated by the many obstacles that stand in their way.
Some of the obstacles are financial and based around the valuation arrangements, the costs of pursuing an enfranchisement claim and other such matters. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire highlighted some of those problems in Committee. Some of the obstacles relate to the complex rules which govern who may and who may not qualify, of which the low-rent test is one. We shall deal with others later today.
The low-rent test is one of the most objectionable obstacles. It is, as I shall seek to demonstrate, unnecessary. It is arbitrary in its impact and it has caused serious injustices. That is why in Committee, we moved successfully, with the support of the hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire, for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), amendments to abolish the low-rent test. Our success in that and other amendments has struck a vital blow for leaseholders. It is fundamental that that progress should not be undermined today, as it will be if Government new schedule 2 is passed unamended.
Let us examine in detail the low-rent test. In effect, there are three tests; it is not a single test. The first test covers leases initially granted before April 1963. The ground rent must be less than two thirds of the letting value for the leaseholder to qualify to enfranchise. The second test covers leases granted between April 1963 and April 1990. The ground rent must be less than two thirds of the rateable value. The third test covers leases granted since April 1990. In order to qualify, the ground rent must be less than £250 outside London and £1, 000 a year in London.
I suspect that simply by describing the hugely complex arrangements, I have helped to advance my case for their abolition. The figures are arbitrary and their impact is capricious. They provide ample scope for reluctant landlords to frustrate the wishes of their leaseholders to buy the freehold. Let me give just one example, which I quoted in Committee. It involves a lady who wrote to me early this year in the following terms. She is a leaseholder living at 78 Cadogan place in London. Her name is Mrs. Loder Dyer. She said:
I wrote to the Prime Minister in 1992 when his Government's Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill was being considered by Parliament. At that time leaseholders such as myself were assured that we would be able to buy our freeholds. This has proved well nigh impossible.
I acquired my long leasehold house on the Cadogan Estate in 1949. It was requisitioned during the war and was derelict. To restore, improve and maintain it over many years has been a great personal and financial sacrifice, particularly since my husband died.
The Cadogan Estate refused to renew my lease. Their solicitors wrote it 'would be the appropriate course for them to institute possession proceedings' against me at the end of the lease which would force me out of my only home. They know I have no statutory security of tenure because I'm disadvantaged by London's high rateable values.
As soon as the Leasehold Reform Bill became law in 1993, I had to exercise the only statutory right open to me by giving notice to my freeholders of my intention to acquire the freehold of my home. They would not admit my claim, obstructing me calculatingly on the sole point that my annual ground rent of 100 was not a low rent.

They knew, in the case of leases granted between 1939 and 1963, I would have to prove that the ground rent is not more than two thirds of the letting value at the start of the lease. This has been the most tortuous and time consuming task for me and my experienced advisers.
I have been forced to go to the County Court on legal aid to establish the letting value. Despite having one of the acknowledged experts in such matters, the Judge completely failed to understand the complexities of how to ascertain the letting value of a lease granted over forty years ago. I now have no other recourse but to seek justice in the Court of Appeal. In a further attempt to obstruct me my freeholders are seeking to raise arguments not previously relied on by them.
The huge financial costs and the distressing personal effect upon me has severely impaired my health. My lease is a long lease at a low rent. It should fully qualify under the legislation. I am still no nearer achieving my vital legal right. I must earnestly seek your help that steps will be taken to remove this disastrous anomaly.
In case anyone should believe that that is just one hard case, let me also give the House—

Mr. Ashby: There are hundreds.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right, but let me give the House the benefit of one of the country's leading experts on the subject: chartered surveyor Mr. Man-Johnson, partner in Man-Johnson and Stevens, who wrote to me at the same time and whose evidence I also quoted to the Committee. He wrote as follows:
I have no hesitation in saying that section 4(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is extremely difficult to interpret in any particular case. It affects only leases starting before April 1963, so the valuer is put to proof as to the letting value of a property more than 33 years ago. Frequently I find that the County Court has serious problems in understanding the valuation aspects of a case, and more often than not, the matter goes to appeal.
He then cited a series of cases and concluded:
Although most of these mistakes were put right on appeal, many lessees fall by the wayside. I have just settled two cases where the claims were lodged 18 years ago in February 1978, and the lessees have lived under the threat of Court action and uncertainty throughout the interim … From time to time, I am instructed to advise on doubtful cases under section 4(1); only too frequently I am obliged to include words in my report such as 'I am certain that the rent at the start of the lease was indeed low within the meaning of the Act, but I am far from certain that I would be able to prove it in Court.' The section works in a capricious manner, and in my opinion it often does prevent proper claims under the Act from getting through the qualifying process.
The low-rent test, therefore, is complex, arbitrary and capricious in its impact. Its result is serious injustices, not to mention appalling costs to leaseholders who have to try to argue their case through a variety of different channels.
So why is that arcane provision there in the first place? The Secretary of State rightly and reasonably said that a Labour Government put it in the 1967 Act and asked why it was there. We contend that it is a product of history for which there may have been justification in 1967, but that it has continued long after there ceased to be any justification for its continuation. The purpose of the low-rent test and the justification offered by the Government for its retention is that it is designed to distinguish leases from tenancies. A lease is sold at a premium and, in consequence—so the argument goes—there is a low ground rent. By contrast, a tenancy is let without a premium at a correspondingly higher rental.
Twenty to 30 years ago, when all tenancies were subject to Rent Acts controls, some tenancies may have been granted—indeed created—by landlords on terms


designed to evade those Acts' provisions. As such, those terms could, without a low-rent test, have been confused with a lease. We accept that, but times have changed. Most tenancies are now let on assured shorthold tenancies and no landlord is going to offer a tenancy for a period lasting more than 21 years when he can get a market rent by letting on an assured or assured shorthold tenancy—the latter requiring a term of no more than six months—so the situation in which the test was incorporated in 1967 no longer applies. If there ever was a case for the low-rent test, it has certainly passed. Remember that, to qualify, leaseholders must demonstrate that they have a lease lasting 21 years or more—that is the key distinction between a lease and a tenancy. That is properly recognised as the fundamental distinction.
5.15 pm
In case anyone still has any doubt on the issue, as my final piece of evidence on this point, let me call the Lord Chancellor's Department. In framing its proposals for the introduction of commonhold, which, as I have explained, was designed to provide an alternative tenure to leasehold, the Lord Chancellor's Department considered whether there was a need for a low-rent test. Its conclusion in 1990, when it published a consultation on commonhold, was that a low-rent test would not be appropriate and was not necessary. It was unambiguous about it. It found no need for a low-rent test to distinguish commonholds from tenancies, even though it envisaged people being able to convert to commonholds from leaseholds. The same logic applies to leaseholds. If the Lord Chancellor's Department six years ago said that there was no need for a low-rent test, surely the Department of the Environment can come to the same conclusion.
The low-rent test is a complex anachronism. It is not necessary, yet it causes serious problems and injustices, blocking the way to leasehold enfranchisement for all too many leaseholders, so why are the Government not supporting the Committee decision to abolish the low-rent test? It is simply because, as in 1987 and 1993, the Government are hamstrung: unfortunately, their supposed commitment to leasehold reform is countered by the pressure from the large landed interests, which remain utterly resistant to the concept of leasehold reform. Unfortunately, they continue to exercise far too great an influence on the Government's policies. Some people suspect that that is because the Government—or the governing party—are in too many respects financially dependent on some of those interests.
The resistance of those landed interests made the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, supposedly designed to safeguard leaseholders, unworkable. As we will discuss in subsequent debates, to our knowledge, no one has been able to benefit from the provisions of part II and part III of the 1987 Act, which are supposed to give protection to leaseholders against bad landlords, because the procedures are so complex and tortuous. There is so much scope for costs to mount against the leaseholder that leaseholders have not been able to make use of it. Landlords have found it an easy device to get around.
There was similar resistance on the part of the big landowners in 1993 as a result of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, which was designed, as the Minister at the time, now Secretary of State for Transport, said, to give enfranchisement opportunities to 750, 000 leaseholders. The vast majority

have not been able to do so because, again, the big landowners nobbled the Government and, through a series of amendments, created legislation that is so riddled with anomalies and so full of loopholes that it is virtually impossible for all except the bravest and the most determined leaseholders to get through it.
If the Government push through their proposed new schedule 2, it will be one more surrender to the big landed interests, and will set up yet another obstacle to enfranchisement when, ostensibly, the low-rent test obstacle is being removed.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman said that parts II and III of the Landlord and Tenant Act had never been used. I do not think that he is right on that. I thought that I would ask when it was last used. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, only last week, in the Wandsworth county court, a group of tenants was able to acquire compulsorily its freehold under part III. I do not see why he should be unhappy about its use. It is true that I want to make it rather easier to use, but it is used already.

Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted to hear that, but I said what I did because on two previous occasions-in 1992–93, when we were debating the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, and again in Committee on the Bill now before us—I put it to Ministers that we had no evidence of cases successfully coming through under the 1987 Act, and they could not give me chapter and verse.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues could not provide the evidence, and I am delighted that he can provide it now. However, I am sure that he will accept that, none the less, the legislation has proved largely ineffective. If it is not ineffective, why does he propose to change the procedure, with a leasehold valuation taking the place of the court in relation to the transfer of management, which we shall discuss later?

Mr. Gummer: No one suggests that the 1987 Act is effective enough, but in this debate, in which it is easy to overstate certain matters, we must get the balance right. I thought that the hon. Gentleman strayed somewhat into the realms of fantasy when he talked about the relationship between myself, for example, and the great landed interests. I found what he said amusing, and enjoyed it, but it did not have much connection with reality or truth. I am merely suggesting that accuracy is important here.

Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to tell the Secretary of State that I entirely accept the need for accuracy. I have tried to be scrupulously accurate, and I immediately accepted his statement that there had been some use of the 1987 Act. However, I have explained that I had no knowledge of that use because his colleagues had not been able to provide me with chapter and verse.

Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raynsford: May I finish my answer? Then I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The 1987 Act promised a great deal and failed to deliver. So did the 1993 Act. When the Secretary of State tries to persuade the House that landed interests have no influence, will he explain the input of the British Property Federation to new schedule 2?

Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, in response to my inquiries I, too, have found that the 1987


Act has hardly been used at all? It is incredibly difficult to use, although I am delighted to hear that, in ornithological terms, one swallow has made the summer.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
At this stage, perhaps we should consider the two main effects of new schedule 2. First, it will exclude a limited number of properties in rural areas let as part of agricultural arrangements on terms involving long leases, but with no premium payable. As we have already established in earlier exchanges, the Country Landowners Association has made a case for the exemption of such properties. We understand that there are not many of them—perhaps 200 or 300 in the whole country. Nevertheless, the CLA's case for their exclusion is valid, and our amendments (a) to (d) would provide for the exclusion of such properties on the face of the Bill.
The second feature of new schedule 2, however, is very different, and creates an entirely new obstacle by establishing a 50-year qualifying period during which the low-rent test would still apply. Leases of 50 years or less will remain subject to the low-rent test. There is no justification for that arbitrary new test. The Secretary of State himself has conceded that 50 years is an entirely arbitrary limit. By contrast, 21 years is well established as the period that defines the distinction between a lease and a tenancy. I have yet to hear any convincing argument for adding a further test of whether the lease was for a period of 50 years or longer.
Indeed, the British Property Federation, whose representatives probably spent much time with the Secretary of State and his officials—

Mr. Gummer: indicated dissent.

Mr. Raynsford: They certainly spent time trying to talk to me about the subject—and they could not provide any convincing justification for the period of 50 years.
We are considering a Government new schedule that would create an entirely new test that would significantly disadvantage individuals with leases shorter than 50 years. It would be capricious and arbitrary in its impact, just as the existing low-rent test has been. No justification has been advanced for it. The Secretary of State himself cannot produce figures to justify it. We do not know how many people may be affected. However, we do know that, if the new schedule is agreed, it will create criteria that will deny to many leaseholders the opportunity to enfranchise, and will provide yet another opportunity for freeholders to seek to frustrate leaseholders' hopes.
As evidence, I can do no better than refer to the case to which I alluded earlier—that of Mrs. Loder Dyer, who found herself blocked from enfranchisement by the low-rent test. The abolition of that test at last offered her the chance to buy her freehold, for which she had longed for many years. Imagine her horror when she discovered that new schedule 2 would dash her hopes yet again.
Mrs. Loder Dyer wrote to me on 26 April, and the House should know the terms in which she wrote:
Dear Mr. Raynsford,
Re: Low Rent Test—Housing Bill

Mrs. Joan South of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association telephoned me yesterday evening to notify me of the Government's intentions to amend the low rent test, namely to confine it to those with leases of 50 years or less. This is a catastrophe and it is quite unjustifiable.
I have a 45¾ year lease and therefore will again be discriminated against by this Government. There are many others in a similar position to me who stand to lose their homes as they have no statutory protection.
I attach for your convenience a copy of my original letter to you which you kindly read out to the Standing Committee"—
that is the letter that I have already read to the House—
I sincerely hope that there will be some means open to you to persuade sufficient Conservative and Opposition MPs to examine their consciences on this matter when a vote is taken.
That is precisely what we shall do. The Secretary of State said earlier that if even one person suffered an injustice, that would be wrong and unacceptable, and that we must not create such a situation. Yet he proposes to cause injustice to that woman and to many other people, on the basis of no evidence, no figures and no justification whatever, simply relying on a hunch that a 50-year test is somehow appropriate.
That move will merely create one more unreasonable, unjustified anomaly in legislation that has for too long been bugged by unreasonable anomalies and arbitrary distinctions of that nature, which have created injustices. Our amendment to the new schedule, while accepting the rural exemption—the change suggested by the Country Landowners Association—for which there is justification, would remove the arbitrary and unjustified 50-year test that the Government seek to introduce, which will discriminate so unfairly against people such as Mrs. Loder Dyer.
Mrs. Loder Dyer is not alone. The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association tells me that there are many others. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire, too, knows that. As a result of his brave vote in favour of leasehold enfranchisement earlier this month, he has had a big mailbag. Many leaseholders would suffer a serious injustice if the Government did not accept our amendments (a) to (d) to new schedule 2, and I therefore hope that the House will stand up for their interests, rather than leaving them to be betrayed again.
By voting for our amendments, the House can demonstrate that it is determined to bring justice at last to all the leaseholders whose hopes have been so cruelly disappointed in the past. If Conservative Members, knowing as they do that what we are advocating is right, none the less decide to support the Government in the Lobby, they will demonstrate in the clearest possible way that they are prepared to subordinate the interests of their leaseholder constituents and the interests of justice to the short-term interests of political expediency, and to pressure from the party Whips.
That would be wrong, and if Conservative Members do it, we shall have no hesitation in ensuring that leaseholders, of whom there are many throughout the country, are well aware of the fact that tonight they voted to deny leaseholders the justice that they deserve. I hope that that will not happen. I hope that Conservative Members who know the justice of our argument will join us in saying to the Government that leasehold reform must go through.
We cannot go on with shabby compromises that create more obstacles and problems, and that ultimately deny the object that all of us say that in principle we support—


leasehold enfranchisement. If that is to become a reality, we have to sweep away the anomalies and loopholes that provide easy opportunities for the enemies of enfranchisement to block the way of leaseholders. Our amendments are just; the issue is simple.

Mr. Ashby: Would not the right way to deal with this be for the Government to accept the amendments and, in another place, add a clause that clearly defines the sort of tenancies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been talking about?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman, perfectly reasonably, seeks a compromise. I put it to him that the right compromise, which we have adopted, is to move the amendment to new schedule 2. Where there is a genuine reason, such as the rural tenancies, for an exemption, we are prepared to accept it, but something that is based on conjecture and speculation, such as the arbitrary figure of 50 years—which he knows is unjustified—cannot remain in the Bill.
We would be irresponsible to allow the Bill to proceed when it contains measures that we know in our hearts to be wrong. Our amendments are right. They are a compromise and accept the need for justifiable safeguards. I sincerely hope that all hon. Members who are aware of the significance and importance of the issue will, in Mrs. Loder Dyer's words, examine their conscience when they vote. I hope that they will vote with us in favour of amendments (a) to (d).

Mrs. Maddock: It must be clear to the Secretary of State that there is cross-party support for dealing with leasehold enfranchisement, which was not properly tackled in 1993. In Committee, there was all-party support for the view that we had to get it right this time.
The problems have been around for several years. We have been incredibly well briefed by those who want real change and to get it right. The hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), and the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), brought their expertise to bear in Committee. I asked the Minister to take account of all the lobbying and discussions that had taken place, and, if he could not accept our amendments then, to try to settle the matter once and for all and to get it right on Report.
Many people have suffered greatly in trying to deal with what can only be described in many cases as a legislative nightmare. In Committee, I pleaded with the Minister to turn those nightmares into sweeter dreams. I am disappointed that today we have nightmares only slightly less worse than those that we had before. The Government amendments and new clauses are not in line with the will of the Committee, which had all-party support. They attempt to reverse the vote in Committee.

Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Lady agree that to say that a nightmare is only slightly less worse when our proposals apply to well over 90 per cent. of cases is to overdo the perfectly reasonable case that she is putting forward?

Mrs. Maddock: I still believe, having been advised by others with experience in the matter, that there will

continue to be many nightmares. That is shown by many of the eloquent examples that have been given today. We have all had letters from people whose nightmares will continue if the Government's proposals are passed.
The Government have made two attempts to get this right. First, in Committee, we had to wait for their proposals, and had little time to discuss them. On the second attempt, the Opposition had to plead with Madam Speaker to ensure that we got amendments tabled for today. This is the third attempt. The Secretary of State said that, when it goes to another place, there will be other attempts to change the Bill and get it right.
There is plenty of evidence from individual groups caught up in the problems of leasehold enfranchisement to allow Government to get the legislation right. The Secretary of State has had helpful suggestions from many hon. Members today. I cannot understand why it is so difficult to get it right. It simply requires the political will.
The plea of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire summarised the Committee's cross-party view that we should keep the 21-year period. By all means let him come back with exclusions, but can the Secretary of State please propose better exclusions and get it right? There is plenty of evidence to allow him to. He has a Department to deal with it. I hope that he will listen carefully today. We may be successful in the Lobby. I cannot emphasise enough the cross-party support outside the House for getting it right, keeping the 21 years and ending the nightmare that people will still suffer in dealing with such matters.

Mr. Carrington: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. As I was not on the Committee, I have sometimes felt that I have been listening to a quarrel that has been going on for some time, which has continued into Report.
It has been a long battle to get leasehold reform. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the huge advances that he has made in the Bill. I greatly welcome the changes in new clause 21 and new schedule 2. They will go a long way to remedying the problems that face people in trying to get enfranchisement under their existing leasehold. There are still problems, but they involve less the legalities of what constitutes a long lease than what in reality is a long lease and what was recognised as a long lease by the parties when they entered into it. We must get equity between the rights of the leaseholder and the genuine rights of the freeholder.
I have long campaigned for the rights for leaseholders and for their right to be enfranchised, because I well know from experience in my constituency and across London of the great problems that have been caused to leaseholders by the evil practices of a few freeholders. However, they are a small number. It is only right that legislation, which by its nature is retrospective, to allow enfranchisement should recognise that freeholders have certain rights.
It has been suggested that the low-rent test should be abolished, and an amendment to that effect was passed in Committee. That would mean that any lease longer than 21 years would qualify for enfranchisement. We must consider whether, in practice, leaseholders and freeholders signed leases 21 or more years ago with the intention that they were long leases, or whether they recognised that the arrangement between them would come to an end in the


fulness of time. There is no question but that, when parties entered into a 99-year lease, it was a surrogate for selling the freehold. However, when it comes down to 21 years, the question is much more clouded.
Fifty years may well be a reasonable compromise. It certainly encompasses most of the abuses. It does not encompass them all, but most of the problems arise with leaseholds created in the late 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s. They were created in London, when the big mansion blocks were converted from rented to leasehold properties, and in the mass of conversions of terraced property in the 1960s and 1970s. Those are the areas in which there have been the most abuses.
For the most part, those problems will be remedied by the 50-year rule. As I made clear in an intervention, I have doubts about whether 50 years is precisely the right term. I have little doubt that 21 years is probably too short. The balance probably lies somewhere between. Perhaps, as I suggested in my intervention, 45 years would deal with more problems than 50.
The hon. Member for Greenwich—an old sparring partner of mine from years ago—mentioned a case of great injustice faced by a lady who had written to him. Her lease was 45¾ years, so she would benefit if there was a small tinkering of the 50 years down to 45. I have no particular brief for 45 years, and have not done any studies to find out whether that is the right period—it might well be 40 years. I do know, however, that we have to find the right balance.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look hard to ensure that we get a period that benefits the maximum number of people with the minimum injustice to freeholders, who entered into perfectly reasonable transactions all those years ago in the belief that they would be protected by the law, and that it would not be changed retrospectively.
Examples are important in this context. In London after the war, as many of the properties had been large family houses and were suffering severe neglect and in a poor state of repair, it was not uncommon—I know this from experience, as my parents were looking for a business property in Belgravia and the west end after the war—for landlords to grant leases of about 30 years, on the understanding that the leaseholder would repair and restore the property. Although I do not know the exact addresses, as I was a little boy at the time, I suspect that the landlord was Grosvenor estates.
Those were historic properties, even in those times, and they had to be restored to a condition in which they could survive as buildings and would not need to be knocked down. That meant dealing with dry rot, installing damp-proof courses, putting on new roofs and restoring the fine architectural features at a substantial cost. Consequently, the early years of the lease were charged at modest levels, with the later years being more of a rent. The intention was effectively for a rented period of up to about 30 years, after which the property would revert to Grosvenor estates.
It would be wrong to consider leaseholders who engaged in such arrangements as necessarily entitled to enfranchisement. There were benefits on both sides, and both parties entered into the arrangements understanding exactly what they were doing.
Similar arrangements are still entered into with historic properties. I understand that the National Trust enters into similar arrangements today. It would be wrong if such leaseholders were entitled to be enfranchised in the way that is being discussed.
There is a balance to be drawn. I believe that we are nearly there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ensured that we are close to remedying most abuses of the leasehold system. It has been a long battle—it was started by the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who sadly died before it could be incorporated into legislation. The battle has been carried forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and my right hon. Friends the Members for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). Some of us have been battling hard for the rights of leaseholders.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has gone nearly the whole way towards providing for leaseholders the remedies they need. However, I urge him to reconsider the 50-year period to find out whether it could be fine-tuned. I also urge him to consider, in time, the introduction of commonhold, which would put the icing on the cake for leaseholders and would enable us to move forward to a form of tenure in urban property that would set us right for the next 100 or 200 years in London.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I shall speak briefly. Unlike the Secretary of State, who was so outraged at what he clearly saw as my audacity in intervening on him when I had not been present to hear the first words that emanated from his lips, I have heard before the arguments that I am hearing this afternoon. I had the privilege to serve on the Standing Committee of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as well as that on this Bill.
I found the contribution of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) fascinating. He presented a personal story, and charitably told the House that he believed that the arrangement that he had described was equal on both sides. I do not accept his interpretation. I read it as informing my view, that the maintenance of the great estates in London was almost entirely dependent on the willingness of those leaseholders to take on the sort of lease to which he referred, and to furnish out of their own pockets the enormous restorations to which he referred in his example. Indeed, they have had the responsibility for maintaining those great estates ever since, by virtue of the financial contribution to maintenance and repair ordained for them by their freeholder.
The introduction of the 50-year period does absolutely nothing to rectify the overwhelming injustice that so many leaseholders have lived under, and will continue to live under, if the House does not vote for the Opposition amendments. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and that furnished by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) have clarified the situation. The introduction of a different number of years will do absolutely nothing to advance the cause of leasehold enfranchisement. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that it will leave thousands of people in the same uneasy situation in which they find themselves today.
We have heard much talk of equity, land, landowners and freeholders. One of the elements that has been missing from the debate is that we are talking not simply about bricks and mortar, but about people's homes—often family homes in which there has been not only a financial requirement to maintain the fabric, at the behest of the owner of the freehold, but an emotional commitment.
As those of us who are privileged to have families know, their entirely individual histories are enshrined—I hesitated to use the word "enshrined", as it is too extreme and possibly sentimental, and 1 would hate to be either—within the confines of the home. The growth and development of the family and the emotional commitment and sense of continuity, to which the Secretary of State referred, are intrinsic, not only in the people involved but in the physical environment in which they live, raise their children and see them grow and develop their own families.
As I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, it is a gross injustice that leaseholders are not allowed to pass property on to their families. I repeat: the Prime Minister has said that one of the central planks of Conservative party policy is that people can pass on what they own to their own—but they do not have a sense of what they have physically and economically maintained as genuinely their own.
The amendment moved by the Secretary of State will do absolutely nothing to remove the sense of temporary engagement, no matter how long it may be perceived that people will live in the home. The introduction of 50 years underlines what I believe to be gross inequity—that, in certain situations, leaseholders have absolutely no right to regard their home as their home.
I urge Government Members to vote for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. As more than one hon. Member has said this afternoon, the low rent amendment received all-party support in Committee, and it was agreed. It would be quite wrong for the House to ignore that debate.
Many thousands of people, in London and around the country, are looking to the House today to relieve them of the anxiety and the burden of not knowing whether they can claim their home for their own. They are not trying to steal it—often, the properties would not be standing were it not for the financial and emotional commitment of the leaseholders—they simply wish to have the security that surely they have worked for and that they have committed themselves to. They want to know that their home is their home.
This is the second time that this issue has been debated in a short time, not only on the Floor of the House but in Committee. The issue has been meticulously examined, and the arguments, in the main, have been serious. Hon. Members should not allow the Government's newly tabled—and supposedly newly considered—amendments to be part of the Bill, as they would betray many thousands of leaseholders who have genuinely looked to us to speak for them. As we have been given a second opportunity to right a wrong, we should do so tonight.

Mr. Brooke: I spoke to the Bill in Committee, and I will not repeat what I said on that occasion—save to say that I recognised that, historically, there had been advantages in the leasehold principle, and that it had greatly benefited the aesthetic charms of central London and of other towns and cities that grew rapidly in the 18th century.
I acknowledged that, in the last decade of the 20th century, the principle of leasehold utility might have been diminished. I suggested that the opportunity of patient unravelling in the Bill should not be missed. I acknowledged the rights of freeholders and of landlords—I emphasise, particularly good freeholders and landlords—as well as the rights of leaseholders. The patient unravelling that I was envisaging was to take both sets of interests into account.
I said that I would support the Government in Committee—but I thought that the amendments owed more to impatient unravelling than to patient unravelling. I said that I hoped that the issues would be reconsidered by Her Majesty's Government in the interim between Committee and Report. The hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) interpreted that as a part of all-party support—and I do not resile from the language that they have used. I need to be fair to the Government—they have reconsidered matters, and I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The hon. Member for Greenwich concentrated his attack on the 50-year provision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that there was nothing sacred about 50 years, which is his current best estimate. That is flexibility and good will enough for me. It would be churlish of me to throw back the Government's concessions when they have reconsidered the issue quite significantly between Committee and Report, as I asked them to do.

Mr. Clive Betts: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), I had the privilege of serving on the Committee considering the Bill, and of listening to the considerable and intricate arguments on the amendments that were eventually carried. As she said, there was all-party support in Committee. The Labour party supported the amendments that the Government are now seeking further to amend by their new clause.
There was support from the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby)—to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has already referred—and he was very brave to make a stand, as a matter of principle, in defence of the rights of many leaseholders who have been substantially disfranchised for many years. He made a stand to ensure that the Bill contained clauses that would give leaseholders the rights they had sought and battled for over the years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich has referred to the work of Joan South and others struggling to ensure the enfranchisement of leaseholders and to give them their proper rights. Members of the Labour party, Liberal Democrats and Ulster Unionists supported the proposals we brought forward—in fact, many arguments were mounted in favour of our proposals.
The thing that influenced and convinced me most of all—it has been raised again today in our discussions about the Government's new proposals—was the fact that this matter has been before the House on so many occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said that, only three years ago, she served on the Committee that looked at exactly the same issue. On that occasion, the Labour party warned the Government that what they were doing was not


satisfactory, that it would not give real and proper rights to leaseholders, and that it would not result in leaseholders being able to purchase the freehold of their property.
In 1993, the Government were warned—as they have been on previous occasions—that they were passing words in legislation that would not give the people in question the rights they desired, words that would not change the fundamental relationship between leaseholders and their freeholders, and words that would not enable leaseholders to buy the freeholds that they desired. When we came to discuss these issues in Committee, it was all too apparent that the Government had not learnt the lessons.
I am most disappointed that, when we had had that debate in Committee, and had had amendments carried which would for the first time give real rights, exercisable rights, to the people fighting this campaign over many years, such as Joan South, the Government were not able to accept them but have come forward with another form of words.
I was not convinced by what the Secretary of State said. When my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich challenged him to show how anyone had benefited from the exercise of the previous legislation, only one case was presented. As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire said, it is a bit like one swallow making a summer, and does not prove the Government's case.
I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said about the 50-year rule. He said that he saw no argument why the 50-year rule was necessarily applicable. A 45-year rule, a 40-year rule or a 35-year rule might equally be introduced. It is possible to argue in favour of any number of years, but those arguments would be based on hunches—on Ministers feeling that it might be the right thing to do.
The Secretary of State has made no convincing case that any research has been done, or empirical evidence collected, to show that 50 years is the right period. I still have not heard from the Secretary of State, or any Conservative Member, any evidence to show that 50 years is the right period. We are asked to vote for a Government new clause that provides for a low-rent test based on 50 years; on what evidence are we asked to do so?
6 pm
The House has been asked to overturn the Committee's decision—to overturn an amendment that would have tackled a low-rent test that has effectively prevented leaseholders from exercising their right to enfranchisement for several successive periods of years, following each successive process of legislation. Leaseholders have not been allowed to exercise their rights; they have been frustrated by the wording of successive pieces of legislation. All we have from the Government is yet another form of words, surrounding a 50-year rule, and no Conservative Member has given us any evidence that that 50-year rule is right, fair and reasonable.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us why 50 years is the right period. Why does not he accept that 45 years, or 40 years, is right?
Perhaps the Secretary of State will also write to Mrs. Loder Dyer, and explain how the new clause will enfranchise her, and justify that. I know that it is not always

possible to devise legislation on the basis of one case, but in this case it surely illustrates a matter of principle—the matter of principle, the just cause, for which that lady has fought for many years. That just cause was not supported by previous legislation, because the wording was lax and offered a freeholder enough loopholes and possibilities to take her, as she explained, through one court process after another—processes that she could not afford.
The lady finally believed that she would receive her entitlements as a result of the amendments that we passed in Committee, but now, because she has a lease of slightly more than 45 years, the 50-year rule will once again exclude her. What will the Secretary of State say to her? He must convince people like her on grounds of fairness and reasonableness if new clause 21 is to be worthy of being passed by the House tonight.

Mr. Gummer: We have had a useful discussion on this subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) suggested that there might be a different way of introducing the equity that he was kind enough to suggest was present in the amendment. I have considered the possibility of tying this in the way that he suggests, but I am happy to reconsider it to discover whether there is a way of using his suggestion. I should not like to over-emphasise the possibilities, because I genuinely have considered the issue carefully, but I am prepared at least to talk to him about these things to discover whether I can do anything.
I think I can honourably say that, because I put the measure into the Bill. I did so because I was Minister responsible for London and because, for many years, I had the considerable experience of listening to, among others, my old friend—now sadly dead—Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who led this battle. He has been supported latterly by his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), and by my right hon. Friends the Members for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). That important group of people has pressed that argument upon me, and that is why the measure is in the Bill in the first place.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire should feel that I have been as flexible as possible, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) attacks me for being flexible. It is very odd. I am afraid that her party is like that; it always wants it every way. She admitted that two sets of legislation have not got it quite right, but evidently believes that I can now get it absolutely right with a snap of my fingers. The hon. Lady might have phrased that more graciously.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) was a little unhappy in his attitude to freeholders, as I have tried to achieve a balance, and will continue to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham made that point carefully, and I was surprised that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) did not recognise what he recognised from experience—that there is something to be said on both sides.
The work that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and his colleagues have done was much more graceful, much more concerned with equity, and much more equal than the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate was


in the rather sad way in which she expressed her view. I found her remark about temporary engagement in housing odd from someone who has opposed, at every step, the ability of council tenants to buy their own homes. She appears to have a very odd inconsistency of opinion.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way on this occasion. I have given way to the hon. Lady several times.
I was impressed by the comments by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), but he repeated what others had said.
I believe that we have achieved a balance. I promise to consider exactly where the line should be drawn, and the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire. I hope that the House will feel that I have been as flexible as possible. I again pay tribute to those of my hon. Friends who pushed this in the first place.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 287.

Division No. 114]
[18.05 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, Mr


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Arbuthnot, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Ashby, David
Congdon, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bendall, Vivian
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Booth, Hartley
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Elletson, Harold


Brandreth, Gyles
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evennett, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Faber, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Butcher, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butler, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forman, Nigel


Carrington, Matthew
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Carttiss, Michael
Forth, Eric





Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fry, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gillan, Cheryl
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, Sir John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, Rt Hon William
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knox, Sir David
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)






Spink, Dr Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spring, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sproat, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walden, George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stephen, Michael
Ward, John


Stern, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan
Waterson, Nigel


Streeter, Gary
Watts, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wells, Bowen


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thomason, Roy
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Willetts, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Yeo, Tim


Tracey, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Simon Burns and


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Derek Conway.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Austin-Walker, John
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cox, Tom


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dafis, Cynog


Beggs, Roy
Darling, Alistair


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Chris (L'Boro &amp; S'worth)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Berry, Roger
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H


Boyes, Roland
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Etherington, Bill


Burden, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Byers, Stephen
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chidgey, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foulkes, George


Church, Judith
Fraser, John


Clapham, Michael
Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Galbraith, Sam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Galloway, George





Gapes, Mike
McGrady, Eddie


Garrett, John
McKelvey, William


George, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
McLeish, Henry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maclennan, Robert


Godsiff, Roger
McMaster, Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
MacShane, Denis


Gordon, Mildred
Maddock, Diana


Graham, Thomas
Maginnis, Ken


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mahon, Alice


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinbuigh S)
Mandelson, Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gunnell, John
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Hain, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Mike
Maxton, John


Hanson, David
Meacher, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Meale, Alan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michael, Alun


Harvey, Nick
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Henderson, Doug
Milburn, Alan


Hendron, Dr Joe
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hodge, Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mowlam, Marjorie


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Mudie, George


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Murphy, Paul


Hoyle, Doug
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hume, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hutton, John
Olner, Bill


Illsley, Eric
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Ingram, Adam
Parry, Robert


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pendry, Tom


Jamieson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Janner, Greville
Pike, Peter L


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Radice, Giles


Jowell, Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Khabra, Piara S
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Rooney, Terry


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Salmond, Alex


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


McCartney, Robert
Simpson, Alan


McCrea, The Reverend William
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)






Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Vaz, Keith


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Snape, Peter
Wallace, James


Soley, Clive
Walley, Joan


Spellar, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wareing, Robert N


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Watson, Mike


Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Andrew


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm


Straw Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)
Wilson Brian


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wise, Audrey


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Worthington, Tony


Thumham, Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Dr Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Noes:


Trickett, Jon
Mr. Eric Clarke and


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Greg Pope

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Henry McLeish: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tonight, the Government have been defeated in Committee in yet another attempt to increase prescription charges. Surely that decision must be respected. It must be wrong for Ministers to ride roughshod over the clear decision of a statutory Committee of the House. Is it in order for me to ask you to protect the House and the public against the actions of Ministers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): My job in the Chair is to ensure the safe passage of the Housing Bill, as amended. For the moment, that is my sole concern.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Bayley: It is on the same matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled on that, so we shall move on.

New clause 15

APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER: TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL

.—(1) Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (appointment of managers by the court) is amended as follows for the purpose of transferring to a leasehold valuation tribunal the jurisdiction of the court under that Part.
(2) In the following contexts for "the court", in the first (or only) place where it occurs, substitute "a leasehold valuation tribunal": section 21(1), section 22(2) (6), section 22(3), section 23(1), section 24(1), (2), (9) and (10): and in every other context, except section 21(6), for "the court" substitute "the tribunal".
(3) In section 21(6) (exclusion of application under inherent jurisdiction of court) for "any jurisdiction existing apart from this Act" substitute "any jurisdiction".

(4) In section 23(2) for "Rules of court" substitute "Procedure regulations".
(5) After section 24 insert—

Jurisdiction of leasehold valuation tribunal

24A.—(1) The jurisdiction conferred by this Part on a leasehold valuation tribunal is exercisable by a rent assessment committee constituted in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 which when so constituted for the purposes of exercising any such jurisdiction shall be known as a leasehold valuation tribunal.

(2) The power to make regulations under section 74(1) (b) of the Rent Act 1977 (procedure of rent assessment committees) extends to prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with any proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part.

Such regulations are referred to in this Part as "procedure regulations".

(3) Any order made by a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part may, with the leave of the court, be enforced in the same way as an order of the county court.

(4) No costs incurred by a party in connection with proceedings under this Part before a leasehold valuation tribunal shall be recoverable by order of any court.

(5) Paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 of Schedule 22 to the Housing Act 1980 (supplementary provisions relating to leasehold valuation tribunals: appeals and provision of information) apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal constituted for the purposes of this section.

(6) On an appeal to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part—

(a) the Lands Tribunal may exercise any power available to the leasehold valuation tribunal in relation to the original matter, and
(b) an order of the Lands Tribunal may be enforced in the same way as an order of the leasehold valuation tribunal.

Leasehold valuation tribunal: applications and fees

24B.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by order as to the form of, or the particulars to be contained in, an application made to a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part.

(2) The Secretary of State may make provision by order—

(a) requiring the payment of fees in respect of any such application, or in respect of any proceedings before, a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part; and
(b) empowering a leasehold valuation tribunal to require a party to proceedings before it to reimburse any other party the amount of any fees paid by him.

(3) The fees payable shall be such as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the order; and the order shall be framed with a view to securing that taking one year with another the amount of the fees charged is sufficient to meet the reasonable cost of providing the service to which they relate.

(4) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases or classes of case or for different areas.

(5) An order may, in particular, provide for the reduction or waiver of fees by reference to the financial resources of the party by whom they are to be paid or met.

Any such order may apply, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, any other statutory means-testing regime as it has effect from time to time.

(6) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which, unless the order contains only such provision as is mentioned in subsection (1), shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".

(6) In section 52 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (jurisdiction of county courts), in subsection (2) (a) for "Parts I to IV" substitute "Parts I, III and IV".—[Mr. Gummer]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 16—Period after which acquisition order may be made.

Government new clause 17—Text of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, as amended.

Government amendments Nos. 92, 93, 140 and 141.

Government new schedule 1—Text of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, as amended.

Mr. Gummer: Earlier, we discussed matters of equity. I suggested that the Bill included these provisions because, as Minister responsible for London, I recognised the continuing problems involved in leasehold enfranchisement. The management of a block of leasehold flats is a particularly important issue. It was put to us that leaseholders should have a right to manage, irrespective of the actions of the freeholder—in other words, that we should ignore whether a freeholder was good, bad or indifferent, and say that in all circumstances leaseholders should be able to manage the property.
We propose to remove clause 81 from the Bill. It gives leaseholders in a block of flats the right to take over responsibility for its management, irrespective of whether the freeholder is doing a good job. We consider that removal to be the correct procedure, because the clause suggests that a right that the freeholder clearly has should be removed without compensation, even if he is an excellent manager. I find that difficult to accept in terms of equity. I say that as someone who has been extremely angry about the activities of so-called freeholders—people who have bought up freeholds for speculative purposes.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) made some pretty unpleasant comments about freeholders generally. To refer to all freeholders in that way removes the force of what I would say about those who do behave badly: they behave in a way that is wholly intolerable and damages the lives of their leaseholders. I have my proposals for change precisely because I find the action of those people unacceptable and current legislation does not provide proper protection.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I am not aware of ever having condemned all freeholders. Perhaps the Secretary of State could point out where I have made such allegations. I was certainly somewhat vehement in Committee in urging hon. Members not to believe that a freeholder who has a seemingly sound name is automatically a good freeholder or property manager.

Mr. Gummer: I am sorry if the hon. Lady feels that I have misjudged her. Certainly the tenor of her remarks in the previous debate did not allow the House to hear any exceptions when she suggested that all leaseholders had contributed more to the development, protection and

maintenance of their properties than freeholders. I am afraid that that is not true. Many freeholders play a perfectly proper part in those arrangements.
I want to ensure that both sides are properly protected and that their rights are properly upheld. I do so having introduced measures to protect leaseholders who were not properly protected because I believed that they needed additional protection.
The difficulty with removing the rights of freeholders without compensation is that we would be removing something of value. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that the price the landlord pays for property reflects the income available from management—not from exploitation, but from management—and genuine commercial business that would stand scrutiny about its fairness. The House must therefore think seriously before it removes the rights of people even when they have behaved wholly genuinely and absolutely properly.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: In a second.
The House has to take that into account because the House is here—in part, at least, and perhaps some would say overall—to protect the rights of all. It is also true that the policy of an unqualified right to take over management would give a landlord the possibility of mounting a challenge to the legislation before the European Court of Human Rights, which allows deprivation of rights only if that can be justified in the public interest and when a fair compensation is paid.
The problem that arises is whether it is reasonable to remove the rights of a good freeholder—somebody who is doing the job properly—or whether we should look for a way to remove those rights when the job is not properly done.

Mr. Ashby: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), so I will give way to him first and then I will be happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State has spoken at great length about the potential damage that would be done by removing freeholders' rights altogether. Will he recognise that the arrangement by which the right to manage would be exercised—we successfully included this in Committee and the measure now appears in the Bill—would involve the creation of a management company on which the freeholder would be guaranteed representation? That is a specific safeguard for the freeholders' interests.

Mr. Gummer: The best opinion I have had is that what is proposed would certainly give the opportunity to mount a challenge. As it stands, the Bill does not cover the rights that people have, and I wish to achieve equity. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am suggesting an alternative route that will meet the need.

Mr. Ashby: I know that my right hon. Friend will say that he has had the best possible advice, but I wonder


whether that advice was the best possible, for the following reason: the freeholders do not have the right to income from the management of the lease of the freehold. Up and down the country, the Lands Tribunal has upheld the fact that the landlord has no rights to income from the management of the company. The advice must be wrong. I can refer my right hon. Friend to many cases and I have copies of detailed judgments in which a marriage value has been ascertained from the freehold. In every single case, the Lands Tribunal has said that the manager—that is, the freeholder, owner and landlord—has no property or financial rights that can be included in the marriage value. Will my right hon. Friend please reconsider the advice that he has been given?

Mr. Gummer: I do not wish to use my lawyers' arguments against my hon. Friend, but the advice of the best lawyers is that there are other aspects that could have intrinsic value and that would open up the possibility of challenge. I am not basing my argument on that; I am merely saying that very good authority believes that.

Mr. Ashby: I do not agree.

Mr. Gummer: I spend a lot of my time disagreeing with legal advice and I fight my argument through. I have argued this point and I have been convinced by that legal advice. I would like my hon. Friend to listen to the fundamental principle. It is very difficult to say to people who have carried out their duties wholly properly and without any fault whatever that, although they entered a lease on the basis that they were going to manage, other people have a right to take the lease away, irrespective of how they have behaved. I do not think that many people would view that as equitable.

Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend is wrong.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend can say that, but I do not think that I am wrong to say—even if his legal view is different from mine—that it would not be thought right in common fairness to take away people's rights when they have done nothing wrong and when, sometimes, they have done more than anyone might have expected. It is not possible for it to be fair in equity to do that. I looked for a way to overcome that problem.
Frankly, I was elected to the House to try to protect the interests of all, not of any one section. I also recognise that in this case there is a considerable difficulty with people getting the right to manage under the present legislation. The hon. Member for Greenwich and I had a joke between us about how many might have managed it or not. He is right: far too few do. I want to make it as easy as possible.

Mr. Raynsford: May I advise the Secretary of State not to be too harsh on the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby)? The Secretary of State will be aware that, without his hon. Friend's vote, the Government would not have had a majority in the Division.
If the Secretary of State feels that it is right to give the right to manage to tenants of local authorities, why is it wrong to give the same right to leaseholders?

Mr. Gummer: First, I was trying to be as helpful as possible to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West

Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby). The Lands Tribunal has ruled that commission is part of landlords' income. Therefore, there is no doubt that the provision would be justiciable in the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Ashby: I have the judgments here.

Mr. Gummer: I am trying hard to be as even-handed as possible, and the advice I have is that that is what the Lands Tribunal has ruled. Therefore, we can say that there is at least a doubt. I do not want a situation in which there is a doubt, either for those who wish to manage or for anyone else. I also want to protect the rights of landlords and tenants and leaseholders. Therefore, I am proposing a solution that will get around the problems.
First, I want it to be absolutely clear that if leaseholders have any reasonable wish to manage because the freeholder has not behaved properly, they should be able to do so rapidly, simply and at very low cost. If I can meet that aim, I will be able to be equitable on both sides. I propose to face up to the thoroughly unscrupulous actions of a minority of landlords and that is why I put a substantial package of measures in the Bill in the first place. That package is not in the Bill because of Opposition pressure: it is there because the Government put it there. The pressure came not from the lion. Member for Greenwich but from my right hon. Friends the Members for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). It came from Conservative Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, who has pressed those issues, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). As Minister responsible for London, I could not have failed to see the problems, and that is why I brought forward a substantial package of measures.
The public expect the House to act with equity, and the first basic problem is that, whenever anybody tried to enforce a management arrangement, the unscrupulous landlord said, "If you lose in court, I will be in a position to get you out of your flat." That rarely happened, and I say that because I am not used to using the word "never". Nevertheless, the threat was often used and many people failed to take their landlord to court. I sought to have the decision made by a body that does not have the powers to remove somebody's leasehold right, so that no one need be frightened. Even though the worry that I have mentioned is largely, if not wholly, unreal, the tribunal seems to be the proper way of proceeding.
In addition, people would not take their landlords to court because it was too expensive. The freeholder would have the best legal advisers—no doubt some of them would be between us if I were to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire. Such actions could be expensive and dragged out, and people would give in.

Mr. Ashby: I have not received any legal advice, but I have studied Lands Tribunal judgment after judgment. I cannot possibly see why a landlord has any right to profit from the management of a premises. That view has been fully upheld by all Lands Tribunal decisions that I have seen, including recent decisions.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend's advice is challenged by people who have done precisely the same as my hon. Friend, but to an even greater extent. I am trying to be as helpful as I can to my hon. Friend. There is, at least, disagreement, so let us leave it at that.
One must devise a way of dealing with the situation that is not expensive and is readily available, which is why I have suggested that the leasehold valuation tribunal would be the suitable organisation. It will be able to make decisions immediately and reasonably cheaply. It will not be necessary for people to have legal representation, because applicable arguments will be much more readily understood by tribunal members, who will be able to use their professional expertise. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire would acknowledge that the problem with the courts is that a judge is not able to use his expertise, even if he has any. Tribunal members will be able to use their expertise and to seek from the freeholder details of how he failed to carry through his duty.
It seems to me that one should go further and reverse—I say this as a non-lawyer—the burden of proof. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors will be publishing a guide to the way in which freeholders should manage property. It will be open to any leaseholder to say, "Here is the guide. My freeholder has failed to adhere to it"—then the tribunal will be able to introduce the manager to run the block of flats. That seems to be the proper way forward. It will ensure easy access to justice for people who need it, the cost will be reasonable and a landlord will have to prove that he has done the job properly—or that he has not for reasons readily acceptable as force majeure.
Labour's proposition would be difficult to defend because it would mean saying to a class of subject that something that they have will be taken away without compensation. I am trying to put in place a means of offering to anybody who wants to take over a property's management a clear, easy and accessible means of doing so.
The significant changes in the Bill are backed by a series of helpful mechanisms. We have added another ground for the tribunal to take into account in considering whether a manager should be appointed—that the freeholder has failed to comply with the relevant codes of practice to which I referred. The tribunal can refer to the code drawn up by the Association of Retirement Housing Managers, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred.

Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State referred to the association's code of guidance and other codes. Which other codes are in existence?

Mr. Gummer: I said that the RICS was finalising a code, which I can approve under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and make statutory. I hope to approve the code and to make sure that it has legal force shortly.
We are proposing to shorten from three to two years the period for which a manager appointed by the LVT must be in place before the tenants have sufficient grounds to apply to acquire the freehold interest. That offers an attractive route for tenants to purchase the freehold at open market value.
We have produced a means of easy, reasonable and accessible redress that protects people from the harassment that we have seen from bad freeholders yet

preserves the equity that otherwise would lead us into grave difficulties—even if I do not go too far in meeting the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, which I do not underestimate, who referred to LVT decisions about the price to be paid for the freeholder's interest on enfranchisement. The Lands Tribunal has ruled that no separate amount needs to be allowed in respect of insurance commissions, because the price fixed by reference to evidence of market transactions already includes that value. The Lands Tribunal, which is superior to the LVT, has confirmed that insurance commissions are part of the value of the freehold. The leading case is that of Calthorpe estate. On that ground, any estate could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights—not the European Court of Justice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East knows. I do not want to be in that position. I want to give people certainty with equity, and the Government's proposals will achieve precisely that.

Mr. Ashby: The new clause and the schedule attempt to address the problem, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for introducing it. I shall not be so churlish as to say that I totally disagree with it, as that is not the point, but we are almost dealing with this as though we are in Committee.
I am fundamentally opposed to leaseholds and always have been. They are a form of confidence trick, established 200 years ago, when the only form of investment available was land. All the great landowners owned land. There was no equity market. No other form of investment was available. Later, landowners transferred ownership of the land, but for only 99 or 125 years, and in three generations would get it back. The high value of the land is repeated time and again. Those are the people whom we are talking about. I believe that, in a sense, we have got it fundamentally wrong.
The interests of the landlord are traded time and again. I am not talking about the people to whom reference has been made in the Chamber in glowing terms, because there are good and bad landlords. By and large, as soon as the landlord has sold off the leasehold, he trades the freehold. I am thinking of a case, which I mentioned in Committee, in which there was a long lease of 120 years, with 117 left to run. The leasehold was traded at auction and bought for £5, 000. The price paid was about six or seven times the annual ground rent.
Why does someone in that position buy the leasehold? Because he hopes that he can do something with it, that in time he will be able to trade it up and that it will be a good investment and make money for him. One of the ways in which he does that is by looking at the services. He is able to do two things: first, he is able to charge an administration fee. "I am the landlord." he says, "I am administering this property, so I shall charge an administration fee, which I assess to be £200 per year per property." That is nice and easy. That is lovely to have. That includes, of course, the cost of various other things. Secondly, he says, "Well, I must also look after the property." That is marvellous. "So I shall have to appoint a surveyor. I just happen to have one in my company." That means more profit for him. because it is his own surveyor. "Oh, " he says, "the property needs to be repaired, doesn't it? I shall use my own company, which charges costs plus 25 per cent. for the work." At the end of the day his return is about 35 or 40 per cent.
That is what I object to very strongly indeed. It is the tenant who suffers and will continue to suffer these high costs. The landlord's interest is in the freehold. The tenant's interest is in the management. He is concerned to see that his property is properly serviced and managed, and there is absolutely no reason why he should not. I cannot understand my right hon. Friend when he says that landlords are entitled to make these great profits, or make profits.

Mr. Gummer: I shall try to help my hon. Friend. I have not said that they are entitled to make either profits or great profits. I said that in law it is established that they have certain rights, and if one took them away without compensation, one would be subject to an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That is all that I am saying. I am not saying whether I think that it is a good thing or a bad thing. I just think that we must take that into account when having these discussions. I am trying to find a way that avoids that issue while still protecting the leaseholder in the way that I know my hon. Friend wants, and that I also want. That is why I put it in the Bill. If I did not care about it, I would not have put it in the Bill in the first place.

Mr. Ashby: Why cannot we all be adventurous in this? I shall not criticise the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will not either. Let us say that landlords are not allowed to earn these profits and then see what happens in the European Court. We have a decision of the Lands Tribunal. It has not been taken to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords. The Lands Tribunal is just a court of first instance that has made a decision. It is not the law. It is merely a precedent. Parliament is sovereign and has the right to legislate and to make laws. I give the undertaking to my right hon. Friend that I would not dream of criticising the Government, and I know that the hon. Member for Greenwich would give the specific undertaking on behalf of his party that he would not dream of criticising the Government but would uphold them as trying their best to do the right thing and to be fair and just to everybody. Why not legislate and be damned? That is what we should do.
I am absolutely convinced morally, despite the decision of the Lands Tribunal, that landlords, by virtue of the fact that they hold the freehold, have no rights in that agreement other than to collect the ground rent and to nominate the insurance company that is to insure the building. Most leases are the same. Mine does not say that my landlord is entitled to commission, merely that he can nominate the insurance company, and when I next pay him his insurance, I shall deduct 15 per cent., because I know that that is his commission. He can take me to court for his 15 per cent. I shall put before him my lease and say, "It doesn't say anything, mate, about you being entitled to take commission."
We voted this in. We gave the right to manage. I cannot think of anything more fitting than that tenants should be allowed to choose their own management, to get away from the exorbitant profits of landlords who have bought these properties at auction. I am not talking about the good landlords, because good landlords do not "manage". The Grosvenor estate does not manage; it creates a head lease. Other people carry out the servicing. The big estates that we all want to praise do not manage.
I received a letter today from Mr. and Mrs. Mathew of Bristol. I grabbed it just before I came into the House. It says:
Dear Mr. Ashby,
As members of a Residents' Association we are very much concerned with trying to manage our own flats, and were therefore pleased to read in 'The Times' April 3rd that you are supporting a 'right to manage' clause in the Housing Bill.
We are victims of extortionate management fees"—
this is important—
which means that no-one in our block is able to sell their flat.
Knowing very little about procedures in the house, we would be most grateful if you could let us know how this bill has progressed and if and when it is likely to become law.
What am I to say in reply? I am to say, "Yes, we are giving you some sort of right. Let me tell you what you must do. It is very complicated. You must serve a notice, which must specify a number of things. Where those things are capable of being remedied by the landlord, he must
'take such steps for the purpose of remedying them as are so specified'
before an application can be made." A landlord can be bad, and then put things right; he can be bad for another year, and then put that right; and he can do the same for another year. Tenants can be given lousy service year after year, but they cannot get very far in doing anything about it, because section 22(2) (d) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 makes it so complicated.
7 pm
I would then have to tell Mr. and Mrs. Mathew, "There are other problems. You must prove not only that the landlord is a bad landlord, but that
'the circumstances by virtue of which he is (or would be) in breach of any such obligation are likely to continue'.
My gosh! I suppose that a medium could be summoned to give evidence, and to explain what "likely to continue" means. I can envisage landlords coming along and saying, "I am terribly sorry, but the circumstances are not likely to continue."
An order can also be made
where the court is satisfied … that unreasonable service charges have been made".
What constitutes "unreasonable"? I suppose that an administration charge, plus use of the landlord's own surveyor, plus a mark-up on the cost of his contractor, is not unreasonable. A mark-up of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. is not unreasonable; the administration charge in itself is not unreasonable. The fact that the surveyor is subject to a charge of £120 an hour is not unreasonable. We are talking about the sum total. That is where the poor tenant is having a lousy time of it.
What worries me most is the provision that
A leasehold valuation tribunal may, on the application of any person interested, vary or discharge (whether conditionally or unconditionally) an order made under this section".
It is a temporary order. Someone has gone to all that trouble, getting the tenants together; they have all put money into the kitty; he has gone to court, and had a terrible time trying to sort everything out; then he finds that the order is only temporary. The landlord then comes along and says, "I have appointed another director, and there is a new management company. It is my


brother-in-law—not my other brother-in-law, this brother-in-law. He is much better than the other one. We shall have no more problems: things will be put right." The leasehold valuation tribunal may well—probably will—discharge the application and management order. Then, six months later, the poor tenants will be back in the same boat.
This is merely an attempt to deal with what I have complained about continually in regard to our whole approach to leasehold reform and the need to tackle rogue landlords. We make it so difficult for the tenant. We look at every way in which we can act, and always choose the most difficult path. Perhaps we consult too many lawyers. Why do we not consult the tenants, and ask them to tell us how to work things out? They will have a simpler approach: they will go straight to the heart of the matter. We have too many lawyers—and I say that as a lawyer myself. We view everything in the most complicated possible way. When I view leasehold reform as a whole, I see the complications involved.
In Committee, I tabled an amendment and two new clauses that would have simplified the whole matter, and gone to the crux of leasehold reform. We should get rid of marriage values and all that junk. When a person buys a freehold at auction, he looks at the ground rent and multiplies it by eight. Let us say that the value of the freehold multiplies it by 10—but no, that is not good enough; it is too simple. We have to turn to marriage values, which were created by surveyors so that they could give themselves more work and which are now enshrined in legislation. If I went to an auction, I should look at the return on the investment, as I would with a company, and save 10 times. That is good enough, surely. But people are buying the freehold at eight times, and asking whether there are ways of getting around it, such as the service charge. They will have a nice little business going, and it will be the tenant who suffers.
When someone buys a long lease, he has taken away most from that property. Let us think of it as a whole. When someone has bought a lease of 99, 125 or, in my case, 999 years, what is left? Nothing but ground rent: nothing of any value. All the talk of enhancing landlords' rights is nonsense. It is an anachronism from 200 years ago. We should view the matter in a cold, specific way, realising that we shall lose some friends on the way—although we shall lose very few, and make many more, while making our existing friends extremely happy.
I beg the Minister to examine the matter again. He has gone so far, but it is very complicated. We shall see hardly any applications. If the measure is passed, I shall write to poor Mr. and Mrs. Mathew telling them that there is not much hope. They can make the application, but it will cost them a lot of money and take a lot of time because the Government are not prepared to do anything substantial, simple and easy about that landlord. I hope that the Minister will tell me how I could write to them differently, but I am not sure that I can.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, Hove—like parts of London—contains many long leaseholders. Like my right hon. Friend, I am angry about the fact that too many have suffered for far too long from bad and, in some cases, unscrupulous management. Freeholders have sought to

make money to which they are not entitled. Regrettably, the problem remains, despite our four bites at the cherry in 1980, 1985, 1987 and 1993, and the considerable progress made by Conservative Governments in helping long leaseholders.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has introduced this package of measures in response, as he said, to representations from a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I agree with him that both sides must be properly protected, and that we must be fair to both sides. I say that particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby). If we are not fair to both sides, it is unlikely that the proposed arrangements will stick. Let me also tell my hon. Friend that the landlord has an interest of value. It is not just a question of the ground rent; there is the reversion. The time involved may not be so long as his 999 years: in many cases, it may be 40 or even 30 years.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's new clause. In particular, on behalf of many constituents whose requests I have forwarded to him and whom I have seen personally—constituents who have asked for simple and cheap procedures—I welcome the use of tribunals. I think that there is a reasonable prospect of such simplicity and cheapness if they are used.
I wish to ask one more thing. Can we expect the tribunals to act with reasonable speed? If they do not and the leaseholders are left hanging around for some time while they try to get the right to manage, it will be very unsatisfactory.
The codes to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred are extremely important. Perhaps I should declare that I am an honorary fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I do not want to alarm my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire too much. It is a non-pecuniary interest. The codes will be a great help. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensure that maximum publicity is given not only to the still further enhancement of the rights of leaseholders, but to the codes? It is very important that the codes are publicised so that leaseholders know the basis on which they may bring cases before the tribunal and when it would be appropriate to do so.
I thank my right hon. Friend for responding to the representations. We have struck the right balance and it is very important that maximum publicity is given to the Bill.

Mr. Carrington: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for proposing the measures. They enable leaseholders who suffer the depredations of bad freeholders to obtain some measure of justice. Whereas I accept the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), I think that it is possible to overcome them. Although, like him, I have an instinctive preference for leaseholders' right to manage, we should not pretend that it has no problems. The right to manage suggests that leaseholders must have a common interest and operate—at least in the majority—in the same interests as one another. Sadly, and indeed perversely, I have come across instances in my constituency where that has not happened.
The valuation tribunal is a vast improvement on having to go to court, but I should like to ask one or two questions on the way in which it would operate. I should be most


grateful if my right hon. Friend could address them in his winding-up speech. The valuation tribunal will be successful only if it is possible to get a decision out of it very quickly—if the delays in hearings are brief and, once hearings start, the decision is taken speedily. That requires that, if there is overload in the number of cases going to such a tribunal, new valuation tribunals can be appointed. It also means that delays caused intentionally by the landlord claiming, for instance, that he is not yet ready with his evidence or other reasons, can be disregarded by the valuation tribunal. In other words, it means that a date can be set and justice can be delivered quickly. It also requires that the appeal process cannot be dragged out by the landlord. I am slightly concerned, not being a lawyer—as some of my hon. Friends who have spoken are—or a surveyor, that if the valuation tribunal decision is contested by the landlord, the landlord may take that decision to the courts and we might be back to square one and leaseholders having to undergo a very long and costly procedure to be able to get justice. We have to address the appeal process, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would consider it.
The principal mode of getting justice is through the guidelines of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which of course we have not seen. To a considerable extent, therefore, we are taking the whole business on trust. I recognise that the guidelines will be improved and, one hopes, put into statute by the Department of the Environment. That is encouraging, but I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would also confirm that the guidelines will be detailed, specific and prescriptive, so that it will not be possible for a landlord to claim that he is acting in accordance with the guidelines by taking, say, three quotations from related builders for maintenance work— the first being his brother, the second his cousin, and the third of course being himself in some guise. It is only right that the guidelines on the management of a building and whether the agent who is managing the building is related to the freeholder are very specific. Clearly, the latter should not be allowed under the guidelines.
On a happier note, I should also be grateful if my right hon. Friend would confirm whether individual leaseholders will be able to go to the tribunal. That is very important. If one leaseholder can go to the tribunal in his own right without having to refer to other leaseholders, the considerable problem in a very large number of inner-London blocks of flats that are owned by non-residential or foreign landlords who do not take a great deal of interest in the management of the block will be solved. If one leaseholder can go to the valuation tribunal and obtain justice and, in extreme circumstances, the appointment of an appropriate manager for the block, many of the wrongs that we see as Members representing inner-London constituencies will be put right. It is important that the right should be exercisable by the individual and not just by the group of leaseholders.
Having said that and in looking forward to the reassurances that I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give me, I welcome the proposed move forward. It is capable of being made to work in a way that will benefit the vast majority of leaseholders. I hope that if the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire described start to appear, my right hon. Friend will revisit the matter either

by order or in another Bill. No matter how long it takes, we must get the management of blocks of flats in London right and ensure that leaseholders have justice.

Mr. Raynsford: In response to the concluding comments of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), I can assure him that if the present Secretary of State fails to provide justice for leaseholders, as I fear he will, the next Labour Government will have no such hesitation in doing what we know is right, to ensure that leaseholders have proper remedies and redress for the many problems that have rightly been highlighted in Committee and in the House.
In the earlier part of the debate, there was what I can describe only as an element of fantasy politics, which started with the Secretary of State and continued with the right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury). If either of them believes that the debate is simply because of pressure from a few Conservative Members, they are living in cloud cuckoo land, as their right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would say.
We are having this debate because leaseholders have rightly been campaigning energetically for many months against the scandalous abuses that have been all too evident. Such abuses have been particularly highlighted by the Evening Standard, which has done a great service, especially for leaseholders in London and in the south-east, in exposing the antics of Mr. Bebbington and others of his ilk, who have nakedly abused their opportunities and extorted money on false pretences from their leaseholders, threatening them with forfeiture if they failed to pay up.
The campaign has been spearheaded by the splendid Campaign Against Residential Leasehold Abuse. Leaseholders and hon. Members owe it a great debt of gratitude for all its work in exposing the problem. The debate has arisen because of that campaign and because of the vote in Committee for a right to manage. If the Committee had not taken that decision, I can assure Conservative Members that we would not be having this debate.
The Secretary of State has admitted that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which was supposedly designed to give remedies and redress to leaseholders, has not been as effective as it might have been. We agree with him. We warned him at the time that it would be ineffective, in just the same way as we warned the Government that the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 would be ineffective. The first main reason why the 1987 Act is ineffective is the cost of court procedures. That is well known, and I think that it is agreed by everyone.
The second reason why the Act is ineffective is the need for the leaseholder to prove that the landlord is in breach of his obligations, and that that breach is likely to continue. That is the wording of the Act, and, of course, it provides the easiest let-out in the book for the reluctant or dishonest landlord. All the landlord has to do is to come along to the court and say, "I am very sorry. I may have done wrong in the past, but I recognise it and I shall be a good boy in future. I shall not commit such offences again." Under the terms of the Act, the court has no option but to say, "Sorry, we cannot appoint a manager."
The third reason, or obstacle, is the immensely complex and bureaucratic procedures, to which the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) alluded.


The procedures require an endless serving of notices, and that all sorts of procedural antics are gone through, which makes it all too easy for unscrupulous freeholders—often able to deploy large batteries of qualified experts, lawyers and professionals—to bamboozle and tie up leaseholders in complications and threats of mounting costs should they try to pursue the issue any further. Those are the three elements of the problem.
The Government lifted those provisions from part II of the 1987 Act, and put them into this Bill—with one significant and crucial amendment, that procedures would in future be effected through leasehold valuation tribunals rather than through the courts. I grant that that provision addresses the issue of costs, but it does not eliminate it. There will be costs, because the well-heeled freeholder will be able to deploy much expert advice and mount a very successful case in a leasehold valuation tribunal, which will inevitably lead the leaseholder to incur substantial costs to counter the case. So it is not true to say that the provision will eliminate costs for leaseholders, although it will reduce them. On that one aspect, I grant that the Government's proposal is better than the 1987 Act.
The Government's proposal does not address the other two issues. The wording that the Government are now proposing for the procedure, under which the leasehold valuation tribunal will have the discretion to appoint a manager, still requires the leaseholder to prove that the landlord has been at fault and that those faults will continue. As I said, it will be all too easy for freeholders with expert lawyers to mount a case to try to demonstrate that, even if they have made mistakes in the past, they have now turned over a new leaf and will be well behaved in future. There will be endless scope for freeholders to evade the provisions.
On the third point, as I said, the procedures are still immensely complex and tortuous, which again will give all too many opportunities for unscrupulous and reluctant freeholders to frustrate the wishes of leaseholders.
Our view, and the view of leaseholders, is that this provision simply will not work. Like the 1987 Act, it will be a sop and not a remedy. In case any hon. Member has any doubts about that, I can only quote the comments of Chas Johnson, of the Campaign Against Residential Leasehold Abuse, who has been tireless in campaigning on the issue, writing to many hon. Members about it and making the case most forcefully. He said:
Do not be misled. The proposed amendment is wholly inferior to 'the right to manage' and dilutes the impact of the Bill dramatically. It is effectively a rehash of existing, unsatisfactory legislation that has remained unused since its introduction in 1987. Its only novelty is a shift in jurisdiction from the courts to the LVT to make its nebulous provisions available on a more affordable basis.
That is the expert commentator's judgment on the new clause— a judgment that we endorse entirely.
The right to manage, by contrast, offers effective redress for leaseholders, and it also offers safeguards for freeholders. As I stressed in an intervention on the speech of the Secretary of State, the model of the right to manage provides for the freeholder to be represented in the management company that would be set up. Freeholders would not have their rights taken away without any compensation. They would have a continuing role to play and a continuing voice, to ensure that the properties were

properly managed. They would have the ability to seek the termination of the management agreement if the management company failed.
There is no threat in these provisions to good landlords. The case was put very forcefully in 1992 by the Grosvenor estate, which stated that it saw no threat in a right to manage. It is not good freeholders who would have anything to lose by the right to manage; it is simply the crooks—the Bebbingtons of the world—who are only too happy to exploit their opportunity to extort unreasonable sums from leaseholders and to threaten them in a scandalous manner if they fail to cough up.
Our right to manage gives leaseholders an effective remedy against such threats, and is widely recognised by leaseholders as the right response. It is utterly inconsistent of the Government to reject it. As I have already pointed out to the Secretary of State, the Government were prepared to introduce a right to manage for council tenants, to enable them to take over the management of their homes, not if their landlord was at fault, but if the tenants wished to exercise the right to manage. I ask the Secretary of State how he can possibly justify those double standards, arguing for a right to manage for council tenants, while denying that same right to leaseholders.
We once again see the malign influence of the big landowners who bankroll the Tory party. They have gone to the Government and said, "We cannot stomach a right to manage." The landowners have once again forced the Government to show their true colours. The Government may talk about aiding and supporting leaseholders, but they will never do so. They will never do so because they are financially dependent on the big landowners, and they will not sacrifice their financial interests to achieve justice for leaseholders.
Earlier today, the Government survived by a whisker a vote in defence of their financial interests and in defence of landowners. But their time is running out, and they will shortly have to face the electorate. When they do, many leaseholders across the country will rightly and harshly judge them for betraying leaseholders' interests in the past few years, and particularly for what they are doing today.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire spoke of the need to be brave and bold. I invite him, and other Conservative Members who want to be brave and bold, to vote with Opposition Members today in defence of leaseholders—to ensure that leaseholders get justice in 1996 rather than having to wait until next year, when Labour will ensure that they get justice.

Mr. Gummer: I suggest to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) that those final flourishes have no connection at all with the truth. Indeed, it is a pity to be attacked for something which it would be rather nice to have. Unfortunately, we do not have the substance, so we do not deserve the criticism. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had examined rather more carefully what we proposed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said very clearly, we are seeking very much more than the hon. Gentleman would give us credit for.
I can assure my hon. Friend that if there is overloading, I shall ensure that there are sufficient tribunals to cover the pressure. He need not be worried about appeals, because they will be not to the courts but to the Lands


Tribunal—so the simplicity continues at that point. The guidelines must be specific, as he said. I have the powers to put them into statute, and I shall ensure that they are as I want them to be. I am sure that he will be happy with them, and I give him my assurance that individual leaseholders can use that mechanism, which is one of the major advantages.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) about publicity for what we are doing and for how the codes will operate. I also need the publicity, because there is no doubt that measures to help leaseholders have been taken by this Government, as a result of pressure from Conservative Members of Parliament. A Conservative Secretary of State and Minister responsible for London introduced the measure at the earliest opportunity. The fact that one or two Opposition Members have suddenly discovered that this might be a subject to be interested in has not escaped those who know. A very high proportion of them will benefit from the legislation that we have introduced. It would be a pity if they had to wait for the next Labour Government, because they would have to wait for decades.
The hon. Member for Greenwich should have looked at the facts before he made the comments that he made. The question of "likely to continue" does not apply to any but the first ground, which is a breach. A breach might, for example, be forced on people by force majeure. Something might arise that is not the landlord's fault and is outwith his power, which means that he cannot provide the service that is necessary. It would be reasonable to allow him to plead that the position was not likely to continue. However, when it comes to unreasonable charges or, for example, a departure from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' codes, no such claim can be made. So the protection is much greater than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
7.30 pm
I believe that we have found a means of protecting the leaseholder without opening ourselves up to the damaging process of law. It is equitable. It provides certainty and it protects. It is another example of the Government's defence of the leaseholder. I hope that the House will support the Government's proposals.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 279.

Division No. 115]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bates, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bendall, Vivian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Bitten, Rt Hon John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baldry, Tony
Brandreth, Gyles


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brazier, Julian





Bright, Sir Graham
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dicks, Terry
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gallie, Phil
Major, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, Sir George
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorst, Sir John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)






Moate, Sir Roger
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Spink, Dr Robert


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spring, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Sproat, Iain


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stern, Michael


Norris, Steve
Stewart, Allan


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Streeter, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sweeney, Walter


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thomason, Roy


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pickles, Eric
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
 Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trend, Michael


 Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


 Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


 Richards, Rod
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


 Riddick, Graham
Viggers, Peter


 Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


 Robathan, Andrew
Walden, George


 Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
 Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waller, Gary


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Ward, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waterson, Nigel


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Watts, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Tom
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Whitney, Ray


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Speed, Sir Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. Derek Conway and


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Mr. Simon Burns.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bermingham, Gerald


Adams, Mrs Irene
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Boyes, Roland


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bradley, Keith


Ashton, Joe
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Battle, John
Burden, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Byers, Stephen


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Callaghan, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Benton, Joe
Cann, Jamie





Chidgey, David
Heppell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Church, Judith
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hodge, Margaret


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Coffey, Ann
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Doug


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hume, John


Corston, Jean
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Roseanna
Janner, Greville


Dafis, Cynog
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Darling, Alistair
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro &amp; S'worth)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jowell, Tessa


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Donald
Keen, Alan


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Donohoe, Brian H
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lewis, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Etherington, Bill
Litherland, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Livingstone, Ken


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fatchett, Derek
Llwyd, Elfyn


Faulds, Andrew
Loyden, Eddie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fisher, Mark
McAllion, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Don (Bath)
McCartney, Ian


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Robert


Fraser, John
McCrea, The Reverend William


Fyfe, Maria
McFall, John


Galbraith, Sam
McGrady, Eddie


Galloway, George
McKelvey, William


Gapes, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


Garrett, John
McLeish, Henry


George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Gerrard, Neil
McMaster, Gordon


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
MacShane, Denis


Godsiff, Roger
Maddock, Diana


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mahon, Alice


Gordon, Mildred
Mandelson, Peter


Graham, Thomas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martin, Michael J (Springbum)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Grocott, Bruce
Maxton, John


Gunnell, John
Meacher, Michael


Hall, Mike
Meale, Alan


Hanson, David
Michael, Alun


Hardy, Peter
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Harvey, Nick
Milburn, Alan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Doug
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hendron, Dr Joe
Moonie, Dr Lewis






Morgan, Rhodri
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morley, Elliot
Short, Clare


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Simpson, Alan


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mudie, George
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Murphy, Paul
Snape, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Soley, Clive


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Edward
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Olner, Bill
Straw, Jack


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickthall, Colin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pike, Peter L
Thumham, Peter


Pope, Greg
Timms, Stephen


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tipping, Paddy

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dennis


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


Primarolo, Dawn
Vaz, Keith


Purchase, Ken
Wallace, James


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walley, Joan


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Watson, Mike


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Andrew


Rendel, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rogers, Allan
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Audrey


Rooney, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wray, Jimmy


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Dr Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Salmond, Alex



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Peter Hain.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 16

PERIOD AFTER WHICH ACQUISITION ORDER MAY BE MADE

'. In Part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (compulsory acquisition by tenants of their landlord's interest), in section 29(3) (conditions for making acquisition orders: period since appointment of manager under Part II) for "three years" substitute "two years".'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 17

TEXT OF PART II OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987, AS AMENDED

'. The text of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 as amended by this Act is set out in Schedule (Text of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, as amended).'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

FORM OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE HOUSING ACT 1988

'.—(1) Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (recovery of possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (b) (which requires the landlord under a fixed term tenancy to give two months' notice to recover possession), after "notice" there shall be inserted "in writing".

(3) In subsection (4) (a) (corresponding provision for periodic tenancies), after "notice", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted "in writing".'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 150, in clause 86, page 59, line 31, at end insert—
'(8) The notices referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) and paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above shall be in writing and in such form as may be prescribed by regulations.'.

Mr. Clappison: This new clause clarifies my undertaking in Committee to reconsider whether written notices should be given by a landlord who is seeking possession. Although the previous practice does not seem to have caused any problems, I agree that it would clarify matters if such notices were required to be in writing. The new clause seeks to achieve that.
I agree that notices should be in writing, but the matter should not be taken so far that a prescribed notice be required, as is proposed in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). That would be an unnecessary formality and I advise the House to resist it.

Mr. Chris Davies: Following the proposal in Committee, the Minister's proposals simply do not go far enough. Amendment No. 150 is a simple, technical amendment that would reduce the need for clarification and for matters to be tested in court at a later date. It is in the Government's interest to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New cause 13

DUTY OF LANDLORD TO PROVIDE STATEMENT OF TERMS OF ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCY

'. After section 20 of the Housing Act 1988 there shall be inserted—

"Post-Housing Act 1996 tenancies: duty of landlord to provide statement as to terms of tenancy

20A.-(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a tenant under an assured shorthold tenancy to which section 19A above applies may, by notice in writing, require the landlord under that tenancy to provide him with a written statement of any term of the tenancy which—

(a) falls within subsection (2) below, and
(b) is not evidenced in writing.

(2) The following terms of a tenancy fall within this subsection, namely—

(a) the date on which the tenancy began or, if it is a statutory periodic tenancy or a tenancy to which section 39(7) below applies, the date on which the tenancy came into being,
(b) the rent payable under the tenancy and the dates on which that rent is payable,
(c) any term providing for a review of the rent payable under the tenancy, and
(d) in the case of a fixed term tenancy, the length of the fixed term.

(3) No notice may be given under subsection (1) above in relation to a term of the tenancy if—

(a) the landlord under the tenancy has provided a statement of that term in response to an earlier notice under that subsection given by the tenant under the tenancy, and
(b) the term has not been varied since the provision of the statement referred to in paragraph (a) above.

(4) A landlord who fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a notice under subsection (1) above within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which he received the notice is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(5) A statement provided for the purposes of subsection (1) above shall not be regarded as conclusive evidence of what was agreed by the parties to the tenancy in question.

(6) Where—

(a) a term of a statutory periodic tenancy is one which has effect by virtue of section 5(3) (e) above, or
(b) a term of a tenancy to which subsection (7) of section 39 below applies is one which has effect by virtue of subsection (6) (e) of that section,

subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to it as if paragraph (b) related to the term of the tenancy from which it derives.

(7) In subsections (1) and (3) above—

(a) references to the tenant under the tenancy shall, in the case of joint tenants, be taken to be references to any of the tenants, and
(b) references to the landlord under the tenancy shall, in the case of joint landlords, be taken to be references to any of the landlords.".'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 17, in schedule 7, page 147, line 28, at end insert—'Tenancies excluded by absence of written tenancy agreement—
(4A) An assured tenancy for which there is no written tenancy agreement.'

Mr. Clappison: Amendment No. 17 deals with the question of what happens where a landlord and tenant do not put their agreement into writing. The amendment would cause such positions to result in a full assured tenancy being created. That is not a good idea. I have reflected on what the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said in Committee about that. It is neither equitable nor logical that, when landlord and tenant do not put their agreement into writing, that consequence should follow.
It may not be entirely prudent for a landlord not to have an agreement in writing—not least from the landlord's own point of view—but a full assured tenancy should not be created for that reason, not least because that would defeat the landlord's intention. It is not fair—or right— when the landlord intends to create an assured shorthold tenancy and when a tenant agrees on that, for a full assured tenancy to be created merely because of the absence of an agreement in writing. The amendment should not be added to schedule 7 as one of the exceptions in relation to assured shorthold tenancies. I note that all the other exceptions where assured tenancies are created depend on the landlord's intention.
The amendment would defeat the landlord's intention. It runs contrary to what we are seeking to do throughout the Bill: it would create unnecessary formality and, in effect, a trap into which some unwary landlords might fall. It is reasonable, however, for landlords to provide more information to tenants. New clause 13 achieves that in a sensible way. It requires the landlord to provide the tenant, on request, with written details about the date that the tenancy began, the rent and other important details. That will provide tenants who have oral agreements with their landlords with the most important terms relating to rent and security of tenure, and will provide an adequate safeguard against the minority of landlords who might seek to exploit their tenants' rights.
Where a landlord fails to comply with his tenant's request within 28 days and there is no reasonable excuse for his failure, the landlord will be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine. That achieves an appropriate balance.

Mr. Raynsford: It will be no surprise to the Minister to learn that we profoundly disagree with him. His comments show the extent to which the Conservative party has, in the past decade, lurched to the right. When assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies were introduced by the late Lord Ridley—not someone who would be deemed to be on the wet side of the Conservative party—the assumption was that normal letting would take place through an assured tenancy. The shorthold tenancy was designed as a tenancy for separate purposes, such as when a landlord wanted to let only for a short period. I remember Lord Ridley saying that, for that reason, shorthold tenancies would attract a lower rent than assured tenancies.
Times have changed, and there has been a progressive erosion of tenants' rights. The shorthold tenancy has become far more popular than the assured tenancy and, because of the acute shortage of rented housing, it often commands a rent identical to that of the more secure assured tenancy. Consequently, landlords have no reason to offer an assured tenancy.
The Government are now compounding that problem by making the assured shorthold tenancy the default tenancy. We believe that there should be a proper fair balance between the interests of landlord and tenant, not the complete surrender that the Government are performing to the interests of the landlord at all costs, while the interests of tenants are abandoned.
We believe that, where a landlord fails to prescribe the fact that he wishes to let for a short period, it is right and proper that a full assured tenancy should be created, and that is the purpose of our amendment. We greatly regret


the fact that the Government will not accept it, but we understand why. Their lurch to the right says it all. Undoubtedly, the matter will need to be revisited after the general election.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New clause 24

SUCCESSION ON DEATH OF TENANT: HOUSING ACT 1985

'After subsection (4) of section 88 of the Housing Act 1985 there shall be inserted—
(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken as preventing any person from qualifying to succeed a tenant in accordance with section 87 above where the tenant concerned has died and had himself succeeded from his spouse or from a joint tenancy with his spouse.".'— [Mr. Betts.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Betts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 160, in clause 113, page 72, line 20, at end insert—
'(4) Nothing in this section shall be taken as preventing any person from qualifying to succeed a tenant in accordance with section 112 above where the tenant concerned has died and had himself succeeded from his spouse or from a joint tenancy with his spouse.'.

Mr. Betts: May I put on the record something that I forgot to say in my last contribution? I declare a potential interest in leasehold reform, in that I am a leaseholder. I declared that in Committee, and although my interest does not affect the new clause and amendment that we are discussing, I thought that it would be helpful to put the fact on the record.
New clause 24 and amendment No. 160 involve the issue of succession, which I raised in Committee. I did not get a satisfactory response from the Minister, but he promised the Committee that he would go away and consider how joint tenancies affected succession. The fact that he has not tabled an amendment on the subject implies that, although he could not find a reason for not tabling one, he failed to do so simply because the Government do not support the principle for which we are arguing.
That is a pity, because my new clause and amendment are an attempt to deal with the position of children who live for much of their lives with their parents, often so as to care for them, and with what happens to them when, when they are in their 40s or 50s and have lived in the family home all their lives, their parents die.
The perverse aspect is that if there are two parents and the father is the tenant but the mother dies first, the law as it stands allows the child to succeed to the tenancy, because there has not been a previous succession. But if the father dies, the mother succeeds to the tenancy and then the mother dies, the child cannot succeed automatically, because there has already been one succession. The child is potentially homeless, and can be evicted.
I do not say that that happens every time, but children in that position have no surety or guarantee that the succession will be theirs. That causes real concern both for the parents, who can often feel an element of guilt for having put the

children in that position, and for the children, for whom there is a great element of uncertainty because when they lose their parents, they may also lose their home.
That difficulty has been compounded by the fact that joint tenancies are now much more usual in local authority properties. As the law stands, if there is a joint tenancy and one of the parents dies, the other parent succeeds as a sole tenant. Again, because of the way in which the law is written, the child cannot then have an automatic right to succeed to the tenancy. It cannot be right that, ultimately, accidents of history—such as which parent dies first, and whether there is a joint tenancy or a sole tenancy—decide whether the child has the right to succeed. That is not equitable.
No one argued in Committee that what I said was wrong, so this time I have tried to phrase the new clause and the amendment more narrowly, so that exclusions from the right of succession do not apply when, although there has been a previous succession, the tenancy has been passed only from one spouse to another, or to a spouse from a previous joint tenancy of both spouses. That seems to avoid the danger of drawing the provision too widely.
I hope that the Minister will rethink, and will accept the amendment, even at this late stage, not because I would get any personal credit thereby, but simply because there are so many people, especially elderly people, who are frightened and worried about what will happen to their children's home when they die, and so many children who do not have a guarantee that they can succeed to their parents' tenancy. In the interests of compassion and of fairness to those people, I hope that the Minister will reconsider.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): The hon. Gentleman is talking about what should happen when there are exceptional circumstances; I presume that he does not envisage a sort of perpetual succession in normal circumstances. None the less, because of local authorities' need to make effective use of their stock, I do not believe that the one-succession rule should be abolished.
There has been considerable debate both inside and outside the Committee about whether succession rights should be extended to cover couples of the same sex who share a home, and we shall discuss that matter on a later amendment. I shall then suggest that the best approach to the difficult situation in which a person may lose his or her home because a tenant has died is for the local authority to grant a tenancy to the remaining person.
We propose to issue unequivocal guidance to local authorities recommending that course of action, which will be equally applicable to the position in which someone faces the loss of his or her home because the one-succession rule bites. I hope that, in the light of that assurance, which I shall be able to amplify on the later amendment, the hon. Gentleman will not feel the need to persist with his new clause and amendment.

Mr. Betts: I shall not push the new clause, but I am not totally satisfied with the Minister's answer. I realise that he will issue guidance, but I hope that, when he does, he will make it clear to authorities that they should include that right in their tenancy policies, up front. The right should not be given to people after their parents die; it should be available to them as a right, if local authorities put it in their policies, so that, before the unhappy event


of their parents' death, people will have the certain knowledge that they will be secure in their tenancy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 78

DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS OF SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 52, line 10, at end insert—
'(6) No appeal shall lie to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Act without the leave of the leasehold valuation tribunal concerned or the Lands Tribunal.
(7) On any such appeal—
(a) the Lands Tribunal may exercise any power available to the leasehold valuation tribunal in relation to the original matter, and
(b) an order of the Lands Tribunal may be enforced in the same way as an order of the leasehold valuation tribunal.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 88 to 91.

Mr. Clappison: The amendment would establish affordable justice through the leasehold valuation tribunals. It is balanced with preserved rights of appeal in limited but appropriate circumstances.

Mr. Raynsford: Given the Secretary of State's penchant for fantasy politics, perhaps it is appropriate to remind the House that the amendment was moved by the Opposition in Committee, and the Government opposed it. That was done partly on technical grounds raised by the judge in charge of the Lands Tribunal, Judge Bernard Marder, with whom I corresponded, concerning the tribunal's methods of working.
I am glad to see that the Government have had second thoughts and have responded to our pressure for affordable justice. We want to ensure that landlords cannot use their financial muscle to deter leaseholders from obtaining justice. Rights of appeal should be allowed in proper circumstances, but we believe that they should be subject to controls to prevent abuse of the system whereby rich freeholders can exercise undue influence on the outcome, and deter leaseholders on modst incomes from pursuing their claims.
We therefore welcome the amendment, but we do not like to let it pass without ensuring that hon. Members are aware of its origin and ancestry, and of the Opposition's contribution to the measure that will now reach the statute book.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 88, in page 52, line 29, leave out 'about fees' and insert 'under this section'.
No. 89, in page 52, line 43, after 'which' insert
', unless the order contains only such provision as is mentioned in subsection (1), '.
No. 90, in page 53, line 4, after 'or' insert
'the Lands Tribunal, or in connection with'.

No. 91, in page 53, line 18, at end insert—
'( ) in the case of proceedings before the Lands Tribunal, to the tribunal;'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 80

APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER BY THE COURT

Amendment made: No. 92, in page 54, line 21, at end insert—
'(ac) where the court is satisfied—
(i) that the landlord has failed to comply with any relevant provision of a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (codes of management practice), and
(ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case;'. —[Mr. Clappison.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 81

RIGHT TO SELF-MANAGEMENT

Amendment made: No. 93, in page 54, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on page 56. —[Mr. Clappison.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIVE VALUE OF THE LANDLORD' S INTERESTS IN THE PREMISES AND OF THE QUALIFYING TENANT'S INTERESTS IN THE PREMISES: SCHEDULE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE 1 TO THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987

Amendment made: No. 140, in page 145, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 146. —[Mr. Clappison.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

TERMS OF MANAGEMENT LEASE: SCHEDULE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE 1A TO THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987

Amendment made: No. 141, in page 146, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 45. —[Mr. Clappison.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 82

VALUATION: COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 56, line 37, leave out '4' and insert '5'.
In Committee, we promised to reconsider the level of fine for failing to offer tenants the right of first refusal. On reflection, we agreed that it should be raised to level 5, which is the highest point on the standard scale.

8 pm

Mr. Raynsford: I will not detain the House, but again I would not wish this opportunity to pass without the Government acknowledging that it was the Opposition who raised the issue in Committee. We welcome the increase but remain sceptical about whether it is an adequate penalty for the offence. The circumstances that led to this involved the failure of some very large landowners to comply with their obligations to offer the right of first refusal to their leaseholders. For them, a fine of £2,500 or even £5,000 is a relatively trivial sum.


We proposed a more effective alternative sanction: the withdrawal of the right to demand service charges and ground rent while they were in breach of their obligations.
Nevertheless, we are pleased that the Government have recognised that the penalty should be increased, although we notice that they propose only that some of the largest and wealthiest landowners in the country should be liable to a fine of exactly the same amount as the humblest homeless person pays, who fails to give accurate information in making a claim for housing under parts VI and VII. There is an extraordinary incongruity about those levels of penalty. I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions about where the Government's priorities lie.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 86

RESTRICTION ON RECOVERY OF POSSESSION ON EXPIRY OR TERMINATION

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 59, line 18, after first 'the' insert 'immediately preceding'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 59, 60A, 61A and 146.

Mr. Clappison: The amendments are concerned with the clarity of wording of the established minimum period of six months for an assured shorthold tenancy. We sought to enshrine that period through the Bill's previous wording, which had attracted some criticism in respect of its clarity. I hope that this wording is clearer and that it will win more plaudits.

Mr. Raynsford: I invite the House to judge what the Minister has just said. The clause as previously worded read:
where the replacement tenancy came into being on the coming to an end of a tenancy which was not a replacement tenancy, to the tenancy on the coming to an end of which the replacement tenancy came into being, and".
That is being amended to read:
where the replacement tenancy came into being on the coming to an end of a tenancy which was not a replacement tenancy to the immediately preceding tenancy on the coming to an end of which the replacement tenancy came into being, and".
I invite the Minister to explain whether that achieves any greater clarity and whether that gobbledegook will be understood by anyone other than the clerks and parliamentary draftsmen who concocted that extraordinary phrase.

Mr. Betts: Can the Minister confirm that, after the initial six-month period, even under the revised wording, there is no effective security for tenants and that they can be evicted from a property at a moment's notice by the landlord?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman may know that that is the established situation and has been since the regime came into being. Assured shorthold tenancies were earlier praised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford).

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 59, in page 59, line 18, leave out from 'tenancy' to and' in line 19.
No. 60A, in page 59, line 21, leave out
'on the coming to an end of which'
and insert 'immediately preceding'.
No. 61A, in page 59, line 22, leave out 'came into being'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 88

MANDATORY POSSESSION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT: REDUCTION IN ARREARS REQUIRED

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 60, line 5, leave out 'eight' and insert 'more than thirteen.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 12, in page 60, line 7, leave out 'two' and insert 'more than three'.

Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 11 deals with the mandatory ground for possession for assured tenants. The Government propose to reduce the period covered by that ground from three months to two. That means that a tenant who is in arrears of only two months can be subject to a mandatory ground for possession against which there is no defence. I stress that there is an additional discretionary ground open to landlords to seek possession where there are any arrears. The opportunity to seek possession is available in any case. We are sceptical about the reduction of the period of the mandatory ground because it could lead to tenants suffering injustice through no fault of theirs.
In Committee, we highlighted the number of people who do not get their housing benefit entitlement in time. Sadly, some local authorities are less efficient than others and do not deliver it in the 14 days in which they are supposed to process claims. In some cases, they take several months to process claims. A tenant left waiting for several months for housing benefit who had no means of paying the rent would soon fall foul of this mandatory ground and be liable to lose his or her home. That would be an injustice.
We tabled amendments in Committee, but unfortunately the Government did not see fit to accept them. We therefore raise the issue again tonight. In view of the pressure on the timetable and to allow us make progress, and being aware that the issues will need to be revisited soon, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 60, line 7, at end add
'and
(c) at the end of Ground 8 there shall be added—
Provided that no order for possession shall be made under this Ground if the Court is satisfied that prior to the date of hearing the tenant has made a claim for housing benefit in respect of the period to which the arrears relate in whole or in part and which has not been finally determined by the local housing authority.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 38, in page 60, line 7, at end add


'and
(c) at the end of Ground 8 there shall be added—
Provided that no order for possession shall be made under this Ground if the Court is satisfied that the tenant has an arguable set-off against the unpaid rent of an amount of liquidated or unliquidated damages capable of reducing the rent outstanding to below the amounts claimed. ".'.

Mr. Hughes: The amendments are the flesh on the bones of the argument that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) was seeking to attribute to his amendments which were considered first. They are realistic and important. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to accede to them.
The amendments deal with possession in assured shorthold tenancies, and the problem that often arises of people who have not had their housing benefit paid. Many hon. Members will have met constituents who have faced possession proceedings when the whole of the arrears is attributable to a failure to pay housing benefit.
Amendment No. 37 gives the complete guarantee that was sought in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). It states:
no order for possession shall be made … the Court is satisfied that prior to the date of hearing the tenant has made a claim for housing benefit in respect of the period to which the arrears relate … and which has not finally been determined".
If an application has been made, a person should not be at risk of losing his or her home while the bureaucracy is grinding, as it often does, exceeding slow.
Amendment No. 38 deals with a similar but arguably slightly less common occurrence, and says that, likewise, there should not be an order for possession if the court is satisfied that the tenant has a set-off against unpaid rent, perhaps for damages for disrepair. All sorts of situations can arise in which it is clear that there is a claim in the other direction that would reduce the rent arrears. It would be unjust that possession proceedings in such cases should be taken to a conclusion. That is especially important for constituencies in which assured shorthold tenancies are now common.
I hope that the Minister will be at least positive, and possibly generous, and make life easy by accepting both amendments. We could then both sit down and move on.

Mr. Clappison: I should like to be generous, but the issue was fully canvassed in Committee. The starting point needs to be that the order for possession will not be made immediately after two months. In practice, it will be a longer period, because, as the hon. Gentleman may know, an extra period of two weeks is required after proceedings commence before a hearing can take place. When one has to wait a little while for a court hearing, it will be longer than that.
I think that it was established in Committee that, in practice, the problem of housing benefit would be dealt with in that fairly lengthy period—somewhere in excess of three months. I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman that, under social security legislation, housing benefit claims should be processed within the statutory 14 days of all the required information being received. If the deadline is not met, local authorities have a statutory duty to make—

Mrs. Maddock: That is the point—it is the getting together of the information so that the claims can be

processed within the 14 days that is the problem. We discussed that in Committee, and I thought that the Minister understood our concerns.

Mr. Clappison: If the hon. Lady would allow me to continue, I will deal with her point.
Where the delay is not the fault of the tenant and the deadline is not met, local authorities have a statutory duty to make payments on account. We explored that issue fairly fully in Committee.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Minister is going to be bold enough to resist the amendments, can he at least ensure that his colleagues in other Departments instruct and inform all courts of the statutory duties, so that no court is in error about the fact that there is an obligation on someone to pay up? That would at least alleviate the problem.

Mr. Clappison: I will reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should have thought that, as a matter of basic knowledge, courts would be aware of their statutory duties.
On amendment No. 38, to amend ground 8 to require the court to offset liquidated and unliquidated damages against rent arrears would encourage tenants to counter-claim for damages due to disrepair in all ground 8 cases. That would lead to long and protracted disputes about the cause and extent of the damages claimed.
I have listened carefully to hon. Members' arguments, but the existing state of the law caters sufficiently well for the question of repairs and rent that is owed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has not persuaded me. On the first issue, a period of time might in theory be wonderful, but the reality of the world we live in is that the system does not deliver even if one extends it for one, two or three months. I am afraid that we are not satisfied, so I shall allow the House to resolve the matter in the usual way.
Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 91

ASSURED PERIODIC TENANCIES: SAME SEX PARTNERS

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 60, leave out lines 29 to 33.
The outcome of our discussions in Committee on succession rights for same-sex partners left us with a Bill that faced two ways. According to the amendment that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) moved successfully, a couple of the same sex in an assured tenancy living together in a relationship corresponding to that of man and wife—I think that that indicates a homosexual relationship, which I assume was her intention—enjoy the right of succession when one partner dies. By contrast, a couple in the same position with a secure tenancy—that is. with a local authority—would not have that right, because a parallel amendment to that end failed. Clearly, that is not a sustainable position, and that is why the Government have tabled amendment No. 26, to delete clause 91 and put assured and secure tenants on the same footing.
We have taken that course rather than resolving the matter by introducing a clause similar to clause 91 to cover secure tenants, because we are concerned about the approach taken in clause 91 and feel that there are better ways to resolve the issues.
The law as it stood, before clause 91 was introduced, provided protection to adults of the same sex who planned to share their home on a long-term basis. Under the provisions of the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988, local authorities, housing associations and private landlords have the power to grant joint tenancies, which means that, when one tenant dies, the remaining tenant can keep his home.
That provides a distinct advantage over the rather narrow provisions of clause 91, which relate only to those same-sex couples who live as if they were man and wife. When the tenant dies in such a relationship, the remaining partner can find him or herself in a difficult position. The problem can be no less acute for those left on their own in other types of household.
A person may have acted for a tenant as an unpaid live-in carer, or a couple of elderly women, or men, may live together for companionship, or perhaps for economy. A joint tenancy would mean that a person left in that situation would not, at a time of great grief, have the added burden of worrying about losing his or her home. Clause 91, on the other hand, would deal only with the situation in which the tenant and the remaining resident had had a sexual relationship.
A joint tenancy is the better solution, but there may be situations where a person has been sharing a household with someone else who is a sole tenant but for some reason has not sought to have the tenancy converted to a joint one. When the tenant dies, the other person will not have the right to take up that tenancy. In such cases, if the person had been living with the tenant for the year before the tenant's death, had been looking after the tenant, or had, or accepted, responsibility for his or her dependants, we would normally expect the local authority to grant the tenancy to that person, or find them suitable alternative accommodation.
Another clear advantage in giving local authorities the flexibility to resolve those situations is that it does not lose sight of their primary obligation to meet housing need in their areas by making the most effective and equitable use of all the housing stock at their disposal.
8.15 pm
There has been concern about a lack of uniformity among local authorities in how they respond to such situations. I propose to deal with that by issuing guidance shortly, which will set out unambiguously the Government's view that, taking into account the need to make the best use of their stock, local authorities should normally provide—those will be the words that will appear in the guidance—for the type of cases that I have described by granting either joint tenancies or a further tenancy where a sole tenant has died. That will be unequivocal guidance, and it will not be confined to couples with a sexual relationship. We will pay close attention to the way in which local authorities implement it.

Mr. Michael Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend as what he has said is helpful.

May I press him a little further on the guidance? I assume that it will be published guidance to all local authorities. Can he say when we can expect it to be issued?

Mr. Curry: It will be published guidance to all local authorities, and it will be issued before the Whitsun recess.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend will know that I am new to this matter. I do not see any reference to sexual relationships in the lines that he is proposing to leave out. Is that relationship understood, or is it in some other part of the legislation?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will find that the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to people living in a relationship corresponding to that of husband and wife. I drew the conclusion that that could bear only one interpretation. My concern was not to exclude those circumstances but to widen them, so that people living in the sort of relationships that I have described would also be covered by the scope of my proposals. I am proposing a more inclusive alternative, not an exclusive one.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the Minister, and also to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for forwarding me a copy of the guidance that the Government intend—I presume—to forward to local authorities. I must be honest with the Minister. We have been given that promise before. It was made to the Standing Committee on the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill in 1993. As we all know, nothing has happened.

Mr. Curry: I repeat here in the Chamber and in a full sitting of the House that the guidance will be issued before this Whitsun recess.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful for that assurance, which will appear in the public record. Even so, such guidance as has been drafted and will go to local authorities causes me concern in certain areas, not least the final paragraph of paragraph 6, which states:
the local authority should normally grant a tenancy to the remaining person or persons, either in the same home or in suitable alternative accommodation".
This has caused me some concern.
We are discussing situations in which there have been relationships. When I introduced the amendment, I said that there must have been a stable relationship in the domestic residence for a year—that the rules that at present apply to heterosexual relationships must apply to single-sex relationships. We have been reassured that the guidelines will be sent to all local authorities. The words
either in the same home or in suitable alternative accommodation
cause me some concern. No doubt relationships will have been established within the community. For example, in a same-sex relationship where both partners are female, there may be children involved, and they may attend the local school. There will be disturbance and disorientation for the children if they are moved to another location. Human relationships are created within a particular environment.
From personal experience, I know that some gay people suffer abuse because of their relationships. The partner who is left may be moved from an area where gay


relationships are acknowledged and accepted, and where gay people are not abused, into an area where they are abused—I am talking not only about physical abuse, but about abuse in which their residence is attacked, with bricks thrown through windows and people hammering on doors in the middle of the night. This is something that causes me concern.
Is it possible for the Government to redraft the guideline or for them to be more precise about what they regard as "suitable alternative accommodation"? It has been my experience that, when people have physically to move from what has been regarded as their home—coming, as it invariably does, on the loss of a loved one—it creates extreme difficulties.
I am reassured by the Minister's assurance that the guidelines will be sent to local authorities before Whitsun this year. Is that a categorical assurance?
However, I remind the Minister that I am concerned about the paragraph to which I referred. Are the local authorities required to inform the Secretary of State that they have received the guidelines and that they are proceeding to implement them? Will local authorities be allowed a period before they regard the guidance as absolute in their treatment of these situations?
I understand that it has been the Government's intention for more than three years—even though the present Secretary of State has significantly failed to implement it—that local authorities should not be able to draw out these guidelines. Local authorities should guarantee that they will implement them.

Mr. Ashby: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) on tabling her amendment in Committee, and on bringing it to the attention of the House. It resulted in a flurry of activity, which has produced some guidelines. The guidelines are not just good, they are excellent, and I am grateful for them. It is my experience in local government that local authorities will adhere to them, so that does not worry me at all.
However, I am worried about a number of things. We have withdrawn the transference of a lease in an assured tenancy that is in the private sector. I hate labels, but it seems to me that we are all looking for labels—especially the gutter press, the tabloids, which are always happy to talk about gay rights, and gay this and that. However, we are not only talking about gay relationships. If the gutter press wants to look for labels, perhaps it ought to think more about care in the community, about carers, and about carers who have been carers for a long time.
People start as carers by leaving their home and leaving it empty for a number of months. The work continues, and a year may stretch into two years, so they give up their previous home and live with the person for whom they are caring. Because the person is being cared for, they may survive for 10 years or more. They develop a close relationship. When the person dies, the carer is left bereft and saddened by the loss of what is effectively a partner—they might be the same sex—and they are also left homeless.
I heard about such a case on a radio programme I took part in recently. The person's name was Mark—I shall not give his full name. Mark was in a relationship with a

man for 30 years. He had the most tremendous accident 12 years ago that left him a quadriplegic. For 10 years, he was cared for as a total quadriplegic. He died in 1994. Mark has lost the person for whom he cared—his partner—and he is now losing his home. Anyone who heard him speak could not be unaffected. I know that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) heard the radio programme. He could not be unaffected, as I was not unaffected, by the depth of feeling expressed by this person—the bereavement and the loss, and the prospect of losing the home that they had shared for 30 years. I was very moved by it.
I think that people in this situation have had a pretty raw deal from Governments—not from our Government—over many years. They are judged by moral standards rather than factual standards. We hold ourselves up as great moralists, and we think that we should be able to judge people in this way—I do not know why we should; I certainly do not. I suppose, after the judgement of the jury in my libel action, I cannot. Putting that aside, I will still speak out. I do not care a bit about the press; it can say and do what it likes in tomorrow's papers; I do not care a damn about it.
I ask the Minister to look at a Bill that deals with landlords and tenants to see whether this amendment—an amendment giving fairness, justice and equal opportunity—cannot be put into it. The Conservative party has always stood for fairness and for justice. The Secretary of State said that, if there is one unfairness, it is one too many for him. I agree—one injustice is one too many.
I think we are being unfair—and ours is the party that stands for fairness and justice. I hope that, when we deal with a landlord and tenant Bill—not a social housing Bill, such as this Bill—we can have some sensible measures to deal with the real world in which we live, not a make-believe world. Perhaps we could reinstate some of the measures that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate so properly put forward, so that the Bill covers assured tenancies as well as social housing.
I am content that we have achieved this much on social housing, and I rest on that. I hope that the Minister and his Department can see that, in future, we will have to go for fairness and for justice. This is not only a homosexual matter—it covers carers, maiden sisters, bachelor brothers and all sorts of relationships. It is a comprehensive issue—it does not relate only to the one issue that the tabloid press wants to raise.

Mr. Chris Davies: I welcome the Minister's approach to this matter—his attitude is sympathetic and sensitive—but his proposals about the issue of guidelines are hardly the same as clarifying the situation and giving the approach that will take the force of law.
Local authorities do prepare their own allocation policies; there is a great deal of variance in them, and different interpretations will be applied in different situations. It is suggested that the guidelines will provide that local authorities will wish to be assured of the likely continuance of such a partnership where no joint tenancy has been established, and assured that there are no adverse implications from the joint tenancy for good use of authorities' housing stock or for authorities' ability to continue to provide for housing need.
A homophobic authority could drive a coach and horses through such guidelines, and it would be very difficult for the partner of a tenant who had died to prove to sceptical


housing officers, backed up by a local authority unsympathetic to such problems, that the partnership would have been likely to continue. Such guidelines are not strong enough to deal with the problems that, I acknowledge, the Minister understands, and which were well expressed by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby).
8.30 pm
Is there not a conflict with part VI of the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will explain. I understand that part VI says that, unless one is a tenant, one will be housed only from the register. Surely the guidelines suggest that the provisions in part VI would be overtaken by the words of a Department of the Environment circular.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I stand in solidarity with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), who I believe spoke for many in the House tonight. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about the guidance, and welcome the time scale he offered to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). My interest in this matter comes from those who may be in the category of elderly orphans—people who have looked after their parents without moving away from home or who may have moved back—and companions, as well as those who may have had a different type of relationship.
I think that the House is doing well tonight.

Mr. Raynsford: I shall briefly raise two points arising from the Minister's comments. First, he was slightly disingenuous when he said that it was necessary to vote down the amendment that was made in Committee, because it would be inconsistent without a similar provision applying to secure tenancies. The truth is that the Government themselves chose to vote down the parallel amendment that was moved to ensure consistency between secure tenancies on one side and assured tenancies in the private sector, so the problem is entirely of their own making.
Secondly, the reason that there has been considerable scepticism about the pledge of new guidance on this issue is partly to do with the timetable. I remind the Minister that it is now more than three years since Lord Strathclyde gave a written answer, confirming that the Government intended "shortly" to issue guidance on the subject. The Government have been a very long time indeed moving on this, so we welcome the assurance that there will be guidance before Whitsun.
I am also anxious about the contents of the guidance. Without having it before us, I do not wish to draw firm conclusions, but there is a fear that the guidance will not give the same legal rights and the same reassurance.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) and me last week. We have not been easily satisfied with the guidance. I can assure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) that the guideline that it is proposed to publish is pretty tough, and I am reasonably satisfied that it meets his points.

Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to hear that from the hon. Gentleman, who I know has been especially worried

about that issue and has spoken forcefully about it in the House. Our scepticism is partly based on the fact that we have not seen the guidance; I am delighted to know that he and some of his hon. Friends have, but we have not. Our scepticism is also partly to do with the difference between guidance and statutory rights. In the absence of a statutory backing, there will be a differential position for same-sex partners as against others; there is an issue of principle there.
Nevertheless, some progress is being made. The Minister has guaranteed that guidance will be issued, so this long fight for justice is at least moving in the right direction. We shall remain very sceptical indeed until we have seen positive and concrete results from what the Minister proposes.

Mr. Curry: Short of carving it on the Dispatch Box, I cannot do more than repeat that we shall issue guidance before Whitsuntide. It will be implemented by the local authorities immediately. I am not holding it back until we issue a general guidance flowing from the Housing Bill.
There is nothing sinister about the idea of suitable alternative accommodation. I had in mind the position when someone wished to move to smaller accommodation—easier to heat, with lower costs—which sometimes happens when someone's partner is deceased. Local authorities will be sensible about that. It seeks to embrace different circumstances.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) for pointing out that this has a wide application in many circumstances. My hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) have pressed me on this, as they will acknowledge. I hope that they feel that we have moved sensibly to deal with people in those circumstances, irrespective of what their sexuality happens to be or the specific circumstances in which they find themselves.
I am not interested in categorising certain people; I am interested in trying to deal with the position that exists, and doing so satisfactorily and fairly, in a way that is seen to be humane by the local authorities. We shall ensure that the guidance is implemented in that way.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 146, in page 149, line 32 after 'of' insert 'Part I of'.

No. 21, in page 151, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'subsection' in line 39 and insert 'In'.

No. 22, in line 39, leave out from '(3) (d) (i), ' to end of line 40.

No. 23, in line 41, after 'inserted' insert 'at the end'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 94

COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT: EXCLUDED PREMISES

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move amendment No. 60B, in page 61, leave out lines 21 to 23.


The amendment would delete clause 94. That clause was successfully moved by the Opposition; it would raise the limit for possible enfranchisement of blocks of flats from 10 per cent. commercial use to 25 per cent. I know that there are significant anxieties about that. I think we have mitigated them considerably by the changes that we have already made, in the form of the management improvements that the House has been pleased to support.
There should be a balance between the rights and the opportunities of the leaseholders and the question of commercial premises. Commercial premises—which are, in a mansion block, the bottom of the block—often provide great difficulty. If they are very successful, the price of the leasehold enfranchisement is so great that it is especially difficult for people to enfranchise. Most of them are not like that. They are often the sort of shops in which it is quite difficult to create a really decent retail environment. I am very keen on encouraging people to do more for these shops and improve them. I am therefore especially concerned about this matter.
I shall give two possible examples of what would happen if the 10 per cent. limit were raised. In the first example, the shops are very prosperous and expanding their trade. The residential leaseholders would have to pay a very high price to buy the freehold interest; in most cases, they would be unable to afford it, so raising the limit would have no effect. In the second example, the retail businesses are not doing so well and are struggling to keep afloat. The price would be more reasonable for the residential leaseholders, but enfranchisement might affect the viability of the marginal businesses and, on some occasions, drive it over the edge.
I am trying very hard to reinvigorate our city centres and groups of shops. I believe that it would be a mistake to increase the limit, and that it would strike against the idea of reinvigoration. I hope that the House will agree that we got it right in 1993 in setting the proportion at 10 per cent. and that we should not be contemplating raising it now. I believe that the damage that would be done to shops that were not very profitable would not be outweighed by those who would enfranchise successfully. When the shops were profitable, people would find it difficult to pay the leasehold price and they would be left in the position that they are in now. I hope that the House will agree that it is not a sensible way forward.

Mr. Raynsford: We have heard from the Secretary of State the same catalogue that he gave earlier this evening denying leaseholders the opportunity to enfranchise by simply proposing to reverse the gains that were made in Committee earlier this month.
I remind the Secretary of State that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 puts the threshold for non-residential accommodation at 50 per cent. In 1992–93, the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) forecast incorrectly that it would be accepted at 20 per cent. He was conned by Ministers who persuaded him, after he had given a forceful speech in favour of increasing the percentage, that they would look sympathetically at his proposals. They conned the hon. Gentleman then in the same way as the Government have conned leaseholders today.
We deplore the way in which the Government are once again betraying leaseholders' interests through the amendment and trying to destroy the good work that was

done in Committee. Ministers might like to reflect on comments of the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration at the end of the Committee, when he described it as a very constructive Committee which reflected well on the British parliamentary system. It can hardly reflect well on the British parliamentary system if the Government seek to reverse on the Floor of the House amendment after amendment that was passed in Committee.
This is a discreditable move by the Government for which they will pay. Many leaseholders who live in blocks of flats that contain a small element of non-residential accommodation will be denied the opportunity to buy their freeholds. They will know that the Government have taken that right from them, and they will blame the Government at the next general election for that denial of their rights.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 95

ENFRANCHISEMENT AND COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT: QUALIFYING TENANTS

Amendment made: No. 152, in page 61, leave out lines 24 to 34.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Orders of the Day — New schedule 2

Low RENT TEST: EXTENSION OF RIGHTS

Right to enfranchisement

1. In the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, after section 1A there shall be inserted—
"Additional right to enfranchisement only in case of houses whose rent exceeds applicable limit under section 4

1AA.—(1) Where—

(a) section 1(1) above would apply in the case of the tenant of a house but for the fact that the tenancy is not a tenancy at a low rent, and
(b) the tenancy falls within subsection (2) below and is not an excluded tenancy,
this Part of this Act shall have effect to confer on the tenant the same right to acquire the freehold of the house and premises as would be conferred by section 1(1) above if it were a tenancy at a low rent.
(2) A tenancy falls within this subsection if—

(a) it is granted for a term of years certain exceeding fifty years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise,
(b) it is for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal, unless it is a tenancy by sub-demise from one which is not a tenancy which falls within this subsection,
(c) it is a tenancy taking effect under section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leases terminable after a death or marriage), or
(d) it is a tenancy which—

(i) is or has been granted for a term of years certain not exceeding fifty years, but with a covenant or obligation for renewal without payment of a premium (but not for perpetual renewal), and
(ii) is or has been once or more renewed so as to bring to more than fifty years the total of the terms granted (including any interval between the end of a tenancy and the grant of a renewal).


(3) A tenancy is an excluded tenancy for the purposes of subsection (1) above if—

(a) the house which the tenant occupies under the tenancy is in an area designated for the purposes of this provision as a rural area by order made by the Secretary of State,
(b) the freehold of that house is owned together with adjoining land which is not occupied for residential purposes, and
(c) the tenancy was granted on or before the day on which section [Low rent test: extension of rights] of the Housing Act 1996 comes into force.
(4) Where this Part of this Act applies as if there were a single tenancy of property comprised in two or more separate tenancies, then, if each of the separate tenancies falls within subsection (2) above, this section shall apply as if the single tenancy did so.
(5) The power to make an order under subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
2.—(1) In consequence of paragraph 1 above, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 1(3A) (b) (extension of rights not to apply to existing lettings by charitable housing trusts), after "1A" there shall be inserted ", 1AA".
(3) In section 3(3) (provision for aggregation of successive tenancies), after "this Part of this Act" there shall be inserted ", except section 1AA, ".
(4) In section 9(1C) (price payable by tenant on enfranchisement by virtue of section 1A or 1B), after "1A" there shall be inserted 1AA".
(5) In section 9A(1) (compensation payable where right to enfranchisement arises by virtue of section 1A or 1B), after "1A" there shall be inserted ", 1AA".
(6) In section 32A(1)(b) (extensions to right to enfranchisement not to apply in relation to existing tenancies of property transferred for public benefit), at the end there shall be inserted "or if section 1AA above were not in force".
(7) In section 37(4) (treatment for the purposes of Part I of tenancy granted to continue as a periodical tenancy after the expiration of a term of years certain), after "this Part of this Act" there shall be inserted ", except section 1AA,".
(8) In Part II of Schedule 3 (procedural provisions), in paragraph 6 (which makes provision about the contents of a tenant's notice under Part I), after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Where the tenant gives the notice by virtue of section 1AA of this Act, sub-paragraph (1) above shall have effect with the substitution for paragraph (b) of—
"(b) such particulars of the tenancy as serve to identify the instrument creating the tenancy and show that the tenancy is one in relation to which section 1AA(1) of this Act has effect to confer a right to acquire the freehold of the house and premises;"."
(9) In that Part of that Schedule, in paragraph 7(4) (admission in landlord's notice of tenant's right to have freehold to be binding on landlord, so far as relating to matters mentioned in section 1(1) (a) and (b)), for "mentioned in section 1(1) (a) and (b) of this Act" there shall be substituted "relevant to the existence of that right".

Right to collective enfranchisement

3.—(1) Chapter I of Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (collective enfranchisement in case of tenants of flats) shall be amended as follows.
(2) Section 5 (qualifying tenants) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1) (which defines a qualifying tenant as a tenant of a flat under a long lease at a low rent), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term", and


(b) in subsection (2)(c) (which excludes from the definition a tenant under a lease granted in breach of the terms of a superior lease which is not a long lease at a low rent), after "rent" there shall be inserted "or for a particularly long term".
(3) After section 8 there shall be inserted—

"Meaning of "particularly long term"

8A.—(1) For the purposes of this Chapter a long lease is for a particularly long term if—

(a) it is granted for a term of years certain exceeding 50 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise,
(b) it is for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal (other than a lease by sub-demise from one which is not for a particularly long term),
(c) it takes effect under section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leases terminable after a death or marriage), or
(d) it is a lease which—
(i) is or has been granted for a term of years certain not exceeding 50 years, but with a covenant or obligation for renewal without payment of a premium (but not for perpetual renewal), and
(ii) is or has been renewed on one or more occasions so as to bring to more than 50 years the total of the terms granted (including any interval between the end of a lease and the grant of a renewal).
(2) A long lease which does not fall within subsection (1) above shall nonetheless be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as being for a particularly long term if it is a long lease by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d) of section 7(1).
(3) Where this Chapter applies as if there were a single lease of property comprised in two or more separate leases, then, if each of the separate leases is for a particularly long term, this Chapter shall apply as if the single lease were for such a term.
(4) In section 13(3)(e) (particulars to be included in initial notice which relevant to whether person a qualifying tenant), in sub-paragraph (ii), for "a lease at a low rent" there shall be substituted "at a low rent or for a particularly long term".

Right to new lease

4.—(1) Chapter II of that Part (individual right of tenant of flat to acquire new lease) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 39(3) (provisions of Chapter I which apply for the purposes of Chapter II), at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted ", and
(d) section 8A,".
(3) In section 42(3) (particulars to be included in notice by qualifying tenant of claim to exercise right), in paragraph (b)(iii), there shall be inserted at the end "or, in accordance with section 8A (as that section so applies), a lease for a particularly long term".
5.—(1) In Chapter VII of that Part (general), section 94 (Crown land) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) (disapplication of restriction imposed by section 3(2) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 on term for which lease may be granted by Crown Estate Commissioners), in paragraph (a), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term".
(3) In subsection (4) (power to shadow statutory rights), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term".
(4) For subsection (12) there shall be substituted—
"(12) For the purposes of this section "long lease which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term" shall be construed in accordance with sections 7. 8 and 8A.".'—[Mr. Gummer.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New schedule 1

TEXT OF PART II OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987, AS AMENDED

PART II

APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS BY LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL

Tenant's right to apply to tribunal for appointment of manager

21.—(1) The tenant of a flat contained in any premises to which this Part applies may, subject to the following provisions of this Part, apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for an order under section 24 appointing a manager to act in relation to those premises.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), this Part applies to premises consisting of the whole or part of a building if the building or part contains two or more flats.

(3) This Part does not apply to any such premises at a time when—

(a) the interest of the landlord in the premises is held by an exempt landlord or a resident landlord, or
(b) the premises are included within the functional land of any charity.

(4) An application for an order under section 24 may be made—

(a) jointly by tenants of two or more flats if they are each entitled to make such an application by virtue of this section, and
(b) in respect of two or more premises to which this Part applies;

and, in relation to any such joint application as is mentioned in paragraph (a), references in this Part to a single tenant shall be construed accordingly.

(5) Where the tenancy of a flat contained in any such premises is held by joint tenants, an application for an order under section 24 in respect of those premises may be made by any one or more of those tenants.

(6) An application to the court for it to exercise in relation to any premises any jurisdiction to appoint a receiver or manager shall not be made by a tenant (in his capacity as such) in any circumstances in which an application could be made by him for an order under section 24 appointing a manager to act in relation to those premises.

(7) References in this Part to a tenant do not include references to a tenant under a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies.

Preliminary notice by tenant

22.—(1) Before an application for an order under section 24 is made in respect of any premises to which this Part applies by a tenant of a flat contained in those premises, a notice under this section must (subject to subsection (3)) be served on the landlord by the tenant.

(2) A notice under this section must—

(a) specify the tenant's name, the address of his flat and an address in England and Wales (which may be the address of his flat) at which the landlord may serve notices, including notices in proceedings, on him in connection with this Part;
(b) state that the tenant intends to make an application for an order under section 24 to be made by a leasehold valuation tribunal in respect of such premises to which this Part applies as are specified in the notice, but (if

paragraph (d) is applicable) that he will not do so if the landlord complies with the requirement specified in pursuance of that paragraph;
(c) specify the grounds on which the tribunal would be asked to make such an order and the matters that would be relied on by the tenant for the purpose of establishing those grounds;
(d) where those matters are capable of being remedied by the landlord, require the landlord, within such reasonable period as is specified in the notice, to take such steps for the purpose of remedying them as are so specified; and
(e) contain such information (if any) as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.

(3) A leasehold valuation tribunal may (whether on the hearing of an application for an order under section 24 or not) by order dispense with the requirement to serve a notice under this section in a case where it is satisfied that it would not be reasonably practicable to serve such a notice on the landlord, but the tribunal may, when doing so, direct that such other notices are served, or such other steps are taken, as it thinks fit.

(4) In a case where—

(a) a notice under this section has been served on the landlord, and
(b) his interest in the premises specified in pursuance of subsection (2)(b) is subject to a mortgage,

the landlord shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving the notice, serve on the mortgagee a copy of the notice.

Application to tribunal for appointment of manager

23.—(1) No application for an order under section 24 shall be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal unless—
(a) in a case where a notice has been served under section 22, either—
(i) the period specified in pursuance of paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of that section has expired without the landlord having taken the steps that he was required to take in pursuance of that provision, or
(ii) that paragraph was not applicable in the circumstances of the case; or
(b) in a case where the requirement to serve such a notice has been dispensed with by an order under subsection (3) of that section, either—
(i) any notices required to be served, and any other steps required to be taken, by virtue of the order have been served or (as the case may be) taken, or
(ii) no direction was given by the tribunal when making the order.

(2) Procedure regulations shall make provision—
(a) for requiring notice of an application for an order under section 24 in respect of any premises to be served on such descriptions of persons as may be specified in the rules; and
(b) for enabling persons served with any such notice to be joined as parties to the proceedings.

Appointment of manager by the tribunal

24.—(1) A leasehold valuation tribunal may, on an application for an order under this section, by order (whether interlocutory or final) appoint a manager to carry out in relation to any premises to which this Part applies—

(a) such functions in connection with the management of the premises, or
(b) such functions of a receiver,or both, as the tribunal thinks fit.

(2) A leasehold valuation tribunal may only make an order under this section in the following circumstances, namely—
(a) where the tribunal is satisfied—



(i) that the landlord either is in breach of any obligation owed by him to the tenant under his tenancy and relating to the management of the premises in question or any part of them or (in the case of an obligation dependent on notice) would be in breach of any such obligation but for the fact that it has not been reasonably practicable for the tenant to give him the appropriate notice, and
(ii) that the circumstances by virtue of which he is (or would be) in breach of any such obligation are likely to continue, and
(iii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case;

(ab) where the court is satisfied—

(i) that unreasonable service charges have been made, or are proposed or likely to be made, and
(ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case;

(ac) where the court is satisfied—

(i) that the landlord has failed to comply with any relevant provisions of a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (codes of management practice), and
(ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case; or
(b) where the court is satisfied that other circumstances exist which make it just and convenient for the order to be made.

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(ab) a service charge shall be taken to be unreasonable—

(a) if the amount is unreasonable having regard to the items for which it is payable,
(b) if the items for which it is payable are of an unnecessarily high standard, or
(c) if the items for which it is payable are of an insufficient standard with the result that additional service charges are or may be incurred.

In that provision and this subsection "service charge" means a service charge within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, other than one excluded from that section by section 27 of that Act (rent of dwelling registered and not entered as variable).

(3) The premises in respect of which an order is made under this section may, if the tribunal thinks fit, be either more or less extensive than the premises specified in the application on which the order is made.

(4) An order under this section may make provision with respect to—
such matters relating to the exercise by the manager of his functions under the order, and
(b) such incidental or ancillary matters, as the tribunal thinks fit; and, on any subsequent application made for the purpose by the manager, the tribunal may give him directions with respect to any such matters.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), an order under this section may provide—
(a) for rights and liabilities arising under contracts to which the manager is not a party to become rights and liabilities of the manager;
(b) for the manager to be entitled to prosecute claims in respect of causes of action (whether contractual or tortious) accruing before or after the date of his appointment;
(c) for remuneration to be paid to the manager by the landlord, or by the tenants of the premises in respect of which the order is made or by all or any of those persons;

(d) for the manager's functions to be exercisable by him (subject to subsection (9)) either during a specified period or without limit of time.

(6) Any such order may be granted subject to such conditions as the court thinks fit, and in particular its operation may be suspended on terms fixed by the tribunal.

(7) In a case where an application for an order under this section was preceded by the service of a notice under section 22, the tribunal may, if it thinks fit, make such an order notwithstanding—
(a) that any period specified in the notice in pursuance of subsection (2)(d) of that section was not a reasonable period, or
(b) that the notice failed in any other respect to comply with any requirement contained in subsection (2) of that section or in any regulations applying to the notice under section 54(3)

(8) The Land Charges Act 1972 and the Land Registration Act 1925 shall apply in relation to an order made under this section as they apply in relation to an order appointing a receiver or sequestrator of land

(9) A leasehold valuation tribunal may, on the application of any person interested, vary or discharge (whether conditionally or unconditionally) an order made under this section; and if the order has been protected by an entry registered under the Land Charges Act 1972 or the Land Registration Act 1925, the tribunal may by order direct that the entry shall be cancelled.

(10) An order made under this section shall not be discharged by a leasehold valuation tribunal by reason only that, by virtue of section 21(3), the premises in respect of which the order was made have ceased to be premises to which this Part applies

(11) References in this section to the management of any premises include references to the repair, maintenance or insurance of those premises.

Jurisdiction of leasehold valuation tribunal

24A.—(1) The jurisdiction conferred by this Part on a leasehold valuation tribunal is exercisable by a rent assessment committee constituted in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 which when so constituted for the purposes of exercising any such jurisdiction shall be known as a leasehold valuation tribunal.

(2) The power to make regulations under section 74(1)(b) of the Rent Act 1977 (procedure of rent assessment committees) extends to prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with any proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part.

Such regulations are referred to in this Part as "procedure regulations"

(3) Any order made by a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part may, with the leave of the court, be enforced in the same way as an order of the county court.

(4) No costs incurred by a party in connection with proceedings under this Part before a leasehold valuation tribunal shall be recoverable by order of any court.

(5) Paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 of Schedule 22 to the Housing Act 1980 (supplementary provisions relating to leasehold valuation tribunals: appeals and provision of information) apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal constituted for the purposes of this section.

(6) On an appeal to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part—
(a) the Lands Tribunal may exercise any power available to the leasehold valuation tribunal in relation to the original matter, and
(b) an order of the Lands Tribunal may be enforced in the same way as an order of the leasehold valuation tribunal.

Leasehold valuation tribunal: applications and fees

24B.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by order as to the form of, or the particulars to be contained in, an application made to a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part.

(2) The Secretary of State may make provision by order—

(a) requiring the payment of fees in respect of any such application, or in respect of any proceedings before, a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part; and
(b) empowering a leasehold valuation tribunal to require a party to proceedings before it to reimburse any other party the amount of any fees paid by him.

(3) The fees payable shall be such as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the order; and the order shall be framed with a view to securing that taking one year with another the amount of the fees charged is sufficient to meet the reasonable cost of providing the service to which they relate.

(4) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases or classes of case or for different areas.

(5) An order may, in particular, provide for the reduction or waiver of fees by reference to the financial resources of the party by whom they are to be paid or met.

Any such order may apply, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, any other statutory means-testing regime as it has effect from time to time.

(6) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which, unless the order contains only such provision as is mentioned in subsection (1), shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 10

ADMINISTRATION OF HOUSING BENEFIT, &C

Mr. Betts: I beg to move amendment No. 143, in page 159, line 24, at end insert—
'(4A) For subsection (8) substitute—
(8) An authority shall disregard, in determining a person's income (whether he is the occupier of a dwelling or any other person whose income falls to be aggregated with that of the occupier of a dwelling), the whole of any war disablement pension or war widows pension payable to that person.
(8A) An authority may modify the housing benefit scheme administered by the authority to such an extent as may be prescribed and any such modification may be adopted by resolution of the authority.".'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 144, in page 160, line 2, at end insert—
'(lA) For subsection (6) substitute—
(6) An authority shall disregard, in determining a person's income (whether he is the occupier of a dwelling or any other person whose income falls to be aggregated with that of the occupier of a dwelling), the whole of any war disablement pension or war widows pension payable to that person.
(6A) An authority may modify the council tax benefit scheme administered by the authority to such an extent as may be prescribed and any such modification may be adopted by resolution of the authority.".'.
No. 145, in page 160, line 2, at end insert—

'(1B) In subsection (7), for the words "(6)(a) ", there shall be substituted the words "(6) and (6A)".'.

Mr. Betts: The amendments address a problem in the current legislation concerning the disregard of war pensions. An injustice is being perpetrated on many war pensioners and their widows up and down the country.
At present, the first £10 of any war disablement pension or war widow's pension is disregarded mandatorily in the benefit calculations of local authorities for both housing and council tax purposes. Local authorities then have the discretion to extend the disregard to the maximum total pension. In doing so, they must pay for any additional disregard out of their resources.
I do not think that it is fair to complain that some local councils choose not to extend the disregard. After all, it is the Government who lay down the national benefit guidelines. It is they who determine what is included mandatorily in the benefit policies applied by local authorities and it is the Government who have chosen not to extend the disregard to all pensions. The Government decided that the mandatory allowance should be only £10.
Because of the local structure, local authorities must weigh the cost of any additional disregard against total expenditure on other services—given that they are almost universally capped by central Government—and against the cost of extending the benefit system to any other case of hardship. I believe that it is an anomaly that the only extension of disregard in the benefit system that is incorporated in legislation applies to war disablement pensions and war widows' pensions. That is the only issue mentioned in addition to the statutory scheme, where local authorities have the right to extend the statutory scheme and to pay for the extension out of their resources.
The issue is very simple. We examined the matter in Committee, but it is important to raise it again in the House. We shall continue to raise it until either we persuade the Government to change the legislation or there is a new Government.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend will recognise that the councils that have chosen to include war pensions in the disregard face extreme financial difficulties. We should recognise our debt to the people who served this country in the world wars and accept the principle espoused in the amendments.

Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a national issue. War pensions are paid to ex-service men and their widows in recognition of the service that they gave to the whole country. People did not fight in wars for Sheffield, Burnley or for any other city: they fought for our country. As such, they receive a national pension which should be disregarded as part of the national benefit scheme. The cost should be met by the nation out of national taxation. That is the principle.
It is wrong that people who have fought in a war for their country and who receive a disability pension should be treated differently from others who fought alongside them but who come from a different part of the country. That is an unjustifiable anomaly. I move the amendment in an attempt to ensure that there is coverage under a national scheme, that costs are borne nationally and that all pensioners, wherever they live, are treated in the same way.
The Government said in Committee that they could not meet the £75 million cost. However, when I inquired again recently, the cost had reduced to £60 million. We owe a debt to those who fought for our country. Surely we can manage to find £60 million in order to rectify an anomaly and to remove a gross injustice perpetrated on many people who do not receive the full benefit of the pension that they earned in fighting for their country.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). He will know that there has been a succession of campaigns on the issue. I have introduced two ten-minute Bills that were supported on both sides of the House and I have also led an all-party delegation to the Department. Amendments were tabled in the past and there is an early-day motion on the subject which has been signed by about 140 Members of Parliament.
I do not want to duplicate the hon. Gentleman's comments, but, according to my figures, 60 per cent. of local authorities currently operate the full disregard. Some 79 per cent. of local authorities in England and Wales operate a total disregard on war disability and war widows' pensions. The reality is not as the Government have stated. The Government's figures are misleading: they overestimate the numbers, as they have not caught up with all the responses from local authorities. I am informed that only 4 per cent. of authorities—18 in total—refuse to give any further concessions.
I make two more points. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: simply by accident of residence—a factor over which people may have no control—pensioners may be treated entirely differently. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) has been a strong advocate in this place of the war pensions issue. People receive war pensions as a reward or recompense for national service. It is not a local authority matter; it is a Government matter and a state matter. Therefore, it should be treated in a similar way throughout the United Kingdom. The Royal British Legion has advised some war pensioners not to claim their entitlement to war pension, as it would be financially disadvantageous to them.
We are not satisfied that the Government understand that equity is worth far more than relatively small sums of public money. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment. If he does not, a diminishing number of those affected will consider the Government to be unnecessarily inflexible. Having celebrated VE day, VJ day and all the other commemorations, we should now be generous. The Government waste money on many things; this should not be one of them. I hope that they respond positively to the amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The Government recognise that war disabled and war widows are a special case. I should stress that all war pensions and the wide ranges of associated allowances that are paid on top of the basic war pension are now completely tax free. Those pensions and allowances are paid at a much higher rate compared with their social security counterparts.
We are debating not whether those pensions and allowances should be tax free but whether, regardless of their means, those who enjoy tax-free pensions and allowances should also be eligible for income-related benefits. The Government believe that there should be a £10 mandatory disregard in respect of housing benefit and council tax benefit, but the provision goes further than the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) suggests: 80 per cent. of war widows also receive the pre-1973 allowance of £51.71 a week. That is also a mandatory disregard for the purposes of housing benefit and council tax.
Although considerable generosity is being shown, the hon. Member for Attercliffe is suggesting that, in respect of income-related benefits that are designed to help those most in need, a total disregard of all such income should be introduced nationally. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) laughs. I take that to be in dissent, but let me give him an example that is rather surprising in terms of social security. It is a example of the anomalies that would arise if the hon. Member for Attercliffe succeeded in his campaign.
A 75-year-old war widow may have a total weekly income made up of two parts, the first of which is her tax-free war widow's pension of a little over £148 a week. She may also have a second income comprising her state retirement pension or private means of up to £70 a week. Therefore, she would have a total income of £220 a week, get her rent paid by housing benefit and her council tax paid in full. In social security terms, that would be extraordinarily generous and we suggest that it would be going too far.
At present, local authorities have discretion as to whether to meet those costs. Some exercise it and some do not. The hon. Member for Attercliffe said bluntly that he wanted it paid centrally. His amendments are defective, however. They do not achieve that. If they were passed, their only effect would be to require Sheffield city council to meet those costs when it has chosen not to do so. On that basis, I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman will wish to press the amendments.

Sir James Molyneaux: I do not dispute the generosity of present and past Governments in this matter, but as we recently discussed issuing fairly stringent guidelines to local authorities, would it not be possible to issue similar guidelines to the defaulting councils, many of which, unfortunately, are dominated by the same party?

Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. It is for local authorities to determine such matters and for their electors to form a judgment. A national scheme would involve extra public expenditure. According to our lowest estimate, it would cost an extra £30 million a year in housing benefit and an extra £10 million in council tax benefit. Local authority returns suggest that it could cost as much as £60 million a year. That is a considerable sum, given that it would be in addition to the £20 million already incurred through mandatory disregards.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister not understand that those of us who are arguing the case and the nation believe that we owe such people the greatest possible debt for our freedom and our society and that is why we support the amendment?

Mr. Evans: Of course we owe them everything, but it is for local authorities to decide how much weight to attach to that debt.
I cannot accept the amendment. I suggest that it is technically defective and that, given the totality of existing provision, it is reasonable in all the circumstances.

Mr. Betts: I was interested to hear the Minister's explanations. We shall send a copy of his speech to the Royal British Legion, whose members will be interested in the Government's attitude in these matters.
The Minister claimed that the amendment was technically defective. I was surprised that his colleagues did not make that assessment in Committee. I also refer him to the comments of the Secretary of State in another Committee that was considering the same issues. He said that Committees and the Government should not hide behind technicalities on matters of principle, but should face up to them.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be necessary to embarrass those councils by listing them? That might encourage them to provide the same benefits as 60 per cent. of councils are affording in due respect to the war service of their residents.

Mr. Betts: The Royal British Legion has already listed councils according to their response on this issue. The purpose of the amendment is that individual councils should not be creating a patchwork quilt of policy across the country. It is a national issue that should be tackled by the Government and incorporated into a national benefits system.
The Minister referred to technical deficiencies. In my view, his entire speech was deficient and some of his comments were disgraceful. He said that the Government had dealt with taxation issues by making war disability pensions and war widows' pensions tax exempt. That would benefit those on high incomes who receive a war disability pension or a war widow's pension, while those on lower incomes would have some of their benefit clawed back. So Government policies hit poorer war pensioners and widows.
The Minister quoted the case of a war widow who received a war widow's pension of £148. He asked why she should have that pension disregarded. However, he then said that local authorities already had that discretion. If the Government do not believe that such a person should have her pension disregarded, why do they allow that discretion to operate as part of the current scheme? I do not accept the Government's arguments or their logic, but, because of time pressure, I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Government are wrong in principle. Their treatment of war pensioners is little short of disgraceful. It should be a national issue dealt with by central Government and paid for out of national taxation. We shall continue to support the campaign of the Royal British Legion until this Government—or a future Government—recognise it and put it into legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 109

NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 70, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) The notice shall also inform the tenant that if he needs help or advice about the notice, and what to do about it, he should take it immediately to a Citizens' Advice Bureau, a housing aid centre, a law centre or a solicitor.'.
In Committee, Opposition Members proposed that the notice stating that the landlord is seeking possession should tell the tenant that he has a right to seek advice. Amendment No. 95 would require the notice to inform the tenant that if he wants advice he should ask a citizens advice bureau, a housing aid centre, a law centre or a solicitor. I believe the amendment to be more helpful than requiring the notice simply to inform the tenant that he has the right to seek advice, as it would instead tell him where he can go to obtain such advice.

Amendment agreed to.

9 pm

Clause 110

RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW OF DECISION TO SEEK POSSESSION

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in page 70, line 36, leave out 'a' and insert 'an independent'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 155, in page 70, leave out lines 40 to 44.

Mr. Hughes: Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 would apply to the part of the Bill dealing with the conduct of tenants and introductory tenancies. The Bill, as currently drafted, provides that if possession proceedings are started under section 109, the tenant shall be told that he or she has a right
to request a review of the landlord's decision to seek an order for possession by serving a notice
Amendment No. 154 would change "a" review into "an independent" review and amendment No. 155 would delete clause 110(2), which as currently drafted provides that the review is carried out by the landlord
in such manner as it considers appropriate
The tenant must also be notified.
The defect of the present system is that we would leave it to the landlord to carry out the review, but it is the landlord who is taking the possession proceedings. The landlord may also carry out the review in a way that it considers appropriate. That gives all the power and all the cards to the landlord and no power and none of the cards to the introductory tenant. All I ask is that we allow the review to be independent, for the protection of the tenant. I cannot believe that a reasonable landlord would object and, in equity, I hope that my amendments will be easily and readily accepted.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 seek to ensure that the review is independent of the local


authority, although they do not specify who will carry out such a review. Authorities will seek to evict a tenant only when anti-social behaviour justifies such action. Clause 109(3) provides that the notice seeking possession spells out the reasons why the tenant is being asked to leave. He will then have 14 days to seek a review.
We shall issue comprehensive guidance on introductory tenancies, to ensure that authorities have in place a fair and equitable system. The review procedure should clearly be carried out by an independent person or body within the council—not by anyone who was involved in the original decision to begin the eviction proceedings. I do not believe that an independent body could improve on that. Local authorities will have to have fair and rigorous procedures in place to ensure that tenants are not treated unfairly. As with all such matters, there is always the risk of judicial review of the local authorities' actions if they have not been exercised properly or reasonably. I do not believe that local authorities will take that risk.
The issue is whether a tenant should be allowed to continue living in council accommodation and the best judge of that must be the authority itself.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has made his case and the guidelines will doubtless be helpful, but he must accept that—from the point of view of the tenant—justice has not only to be done but to be seen to be done. If the landlord evicts a tenant, the fact that somebody else employed by the landlord will carry out a review is not persuasive.
I must tell the Minister that people do not believe in the independence of a review behind closed doors. He has not said whether the review will be in public, whether there will be a time for people to put evidence to the review and whether the tenant may bring somebody with him to argue the case. Constituents regularly come to tell me that a review is to take place in four days, and that it will be carried out by another officer from the same department—a colleague of the person who made the original decision. That officer is therefore not entirely independent.
The Minister's argument is not persuasive. Even with the guidelines that the Minister promised, the provision is supportive of landlords and not helpful to tenants. I do not feel able to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, and it would not be in the interests of tenants for me to do so. I hope that the Government will think again and ensure that the review is properly independent.
The Minister said that I have not specified who should carry out the review. As the Minister will know, I have not specified anyone in the amendments in order to allow a greater opportunity for somebody to be designated. There are plenty of people available, and the Government regularly set up independent agencies. It is entirely possible for the review to be done by an independent agency. We must move away from the position in housing law in which the judge and the jury are the same body.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 113

CASES WHERE THE TENANT IS A SUCCESSOR

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 72, line 11, after 'proceedings) ', insert

'or under section 15 of and Schedule 1(2)(e) to the Children Act 1989 (transfer of property in the interests of a child).'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 42, in clause 114, page 72, line 36, after 'proceedings) ', insert
'or under section 15 of and Schedule 1(2)(e) to the Children Act 1989 (transfer of property in the interests of a child).'.
No. 43, in clause 115, page 72, line 43, after 'proceedings) ', insert
'or under section 15 of and Schedule 1(2)(e) to the Children Act 1989 (transfer of property in the interests of a child).'.

Mrs. Maddock: The amendments are meant to be helpful, as they would ensure that the new provisions for introductory tenancies deal with both statutory provisions under which a family court might order transfer of the tenancy. The amendments make good an important drafting deficiency. Family courts have the power to order the transfer of tenancies under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Children Act 1989. The amendments will ensure that the Bill ties up with that legislation. In Committee, the Minister indicated that the omission might be the result of the powers in the 1989 Act being overlooked. The amendments give the Minister the opportunity to correct that error, and I press him to accept them in that spirit.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: We are aware that provisions in the Children Act 1989 cut across the Bill's provisions relating to succession and transferred tenancies. We are in touch with other Departments to ascertain the consequential amendments required to tidy up the statute. We are willing to consider the three amendments in principle and will, where appropriate, introduce amendments in another place. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will be minded to withdraw amendment No. 41.

Mrs. Maddock: I will convey the Minister's comments to my colleagues in another place, who will be pressing to ensure that my points are taken on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 118

CONSULTATION ON MATTERS OF HOUSING MANAGEMENT

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in page 73, line 31, leave out
'it considers appropriate to enable'
and insert 'will guarantee.'

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 157, in page 73, line 40, after 'arrangements', insert
'and replies with a reasonable response to each and every representation made.'.
No. 158, in page 74, line 25, at end insert—
'(c) be given to all tenants affected.'.

Mr. Hughes: Clause 118(2) states:
The authority or trust"—
the landlord—
shall maintain such arrangements as it considers appropriate to enable those of its introductory tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by a relevant matter of housing management—

(a) to be informed of the proposals of the authority or trust …
(b) to make their views known"

I want a guarantee that tenants
who are likely to be substantially affected
are informed. People often are not. The council may say that it has sent a notice or posted a letter, but often such communications never arrive. I am not so trusting of local authorities. My experience in Southwark has taught me to be untrusting often of Southwark council's housing department. I would be far more trusting if the law gave tenants a guarantee that they will be consulted—and if it can be proved that the council did not consult, it can be taken to task.
Amendment No. 157 would give some teeth to subsection (2), which embodies a wonderful tradition of legislating by stating that local government
shall, before making a decision on the matter, consider any representations made to it in accordance with those arrangements.
That can mean placing one piece of paper in front of a council officer, who considers it for one second before dismissing it. If one is really lucky, the matter might appear on an agenda and be nodded through in a meeting without formal consideration. The amendment would make certain that any representation is answered, and answered reasonably. Any tenant who says, "This is my view: you ought to run the show this way; you ought to do something different, " will know that his comments will be taken into account.
Probably more pieces of paper from tenants have gone missing in Southwark council than in any other authority in the world. People are told, "Sorry, we cannot find the files. We cannot find the paperwork. We don't think that we received the document." Tenants go to the council day after day, sometimes week after week, to complain but nothing happens. We must give tenants the right to an answer. Democracy in housing management needs answers, and if there is to be equity as between tenants and landlords, tenants must have a right to them.
Amendment No. 158 would ensure that the authority or trust publishes details of the arrangements that it makes under this section, that it publishes a copy of the documents and that a copy is given to all tenants affected. Yes, it can be perfectly proper to place the information in the council's principal office. Yes, it may be made available, on payment of a reasonable fee, to any member of the public. It is, however, important to ensure that it reaches the people affected. Although in that respect Labour-run Southwark council is better than it was, people are regularly not given information. Some people must have it put through their door and drawn to their attention. It is no good saying, "It is in the council office, " or, "You can come and see it, " or, "Get your friend to go along and pay 20p to get a copy." We must ensure that tenants are given the information.
Democratic housing management, which, above all, is about the rights of tenants, requires that tenants are given information. That should be the duty of the landlord. My amendments simply seek to ensure that we give teeth and a bit of toughness to the proposal, to deal with

authorities, which, like Southwark over many years, have often been poor at ensuring that tenants are given information to which they are entitled, and which we have legislated that tenants should have.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Amendment No. 156 would require local authorities to guarantee that their tenants are consulted on housing management matters. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, clause 118 already requires local authorities to maintain such arrangements as they feel appropriate to ensure that introductory tenants are consulted. The provision is based on the Housing Act 1985, which requires local authorities to consult their secure tenants on the same basis. I have no reason to suppose that the current system has not worked for both tenants and local authorities.
Authorities are already required to consider any representation made during consultation, but amendment No. 157 would require them to reply to each and every representation. I am sure that local authorities will make every reasonable effort to reply.

Mr. Simon Hughes: But they do not, so what is the sanction? How can tenants know that any representation that they make is considered properly and what the considered view is? I can assure the Minister that representations regularly disappear into a black hole or into thin air and tenants never hear anything from the council again.

Mr. Jones: I am struck by the hon. Gentleman's regard for local democracy and accountability. He must have even more experience than I have of Labour and Liberal councillors.
Amendment No. 158 would be a costly and wasteful exercise. Authorities are already required to make details of consultation arrangements available and can make a small charge should anybody want a copy. I cannot see that the hon. Gentleman's amendments would improve the situation, and I urge him not to pursue them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am entirely unsatisfied. If the Minister thinks that all councils are the wonderful paragons of virtue that we legislate to make them, he has another think coming. Not all councils are as bad in their housing management as Southwark traditionally is, but I am afraid that it is not a happy story in many cases. I could bring in an army of tenants, who could fill the Gallery and Central Lobby. They would tell the Minister just how bad it is. Even now, under the so-called new management of Southwark, things have barely improved in that respect.
I shall not withdraw the amendments. The Government can vote them down if they want to, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will not try to make party political points. We need good management by all councils, of whichever party. The rights of tenants must be looked after. I should have thought that it was in the Government's interest to do that.

Amendment negatived

Clause 123

EXTENSION OF GROUND OF NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE TO NEIGHBOURS, &C

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 75, line 29, after 'of' insert'—(i)'

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 97, 102, 103, 106 and 107.

Mr. Curry: In Committee, Opposition Members tabled a number of amendments to try to strengthen local authorities' powers to deal with drug dealers. I undertook to examine which of those would make a further impact on the problem.
As a result of that undertaking, I have introduced amendments Nos. 96 and 97, which will extend the scope of local authorities' powers by allowing eviction to take place where the tenant has been convicted of an arrestable offence in the locality of the dwelling. At the moment, the tenant must have used his or her home for the offence. I believe that this will be a particularly useful measure to deal with drug dealing cases where the traffic may well take place in the common parts of the estate rather than in a person's home.
Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 replicate that provision for assured tenancies.
Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are consequential.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has confirmed that the amendments were tabled in response to amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee, which were specifically aimed to deal with the problem of people using their tenancies as a basis for drug dealing. We recommended that a conviction for a drugs-related offence committed in, or in the immediate vicinity of, a person's home should provide a mandatory ground for possession. Tenants throughout the country are extremely anxious about the damage caused to their communities by the behaviour of drug dealers and they want tough responses.
9.15 pm
I accept that the Government have brought back an amendment which goes some way towards doing what we want, but it could have unintended consequences. It refers only to tenants who are convicted of a criminal offence related to the area where they live. That could involve offences that are inherently anti-social, such as drug dealing, but it could equally involve an offence with no anti-social implications for the neighbourhood or to other tenants in the area. While no one would condone an offence committed from a council property, or indeed from any other property, I question whether the purpose for which we tabled the original amendment was to take double action against someone who has been convicted—quite properly—of an offence when that offence has caused no nuisance to that person's neighbours.
Although we are pleased that the Government have responded, we are not satisfied that the amendment goes all the way, and we fear that there might be unforeseen consequences that we certainly did not intend. As we are glad that some progress has been made, however, we will support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 97, in page 75, line 30, at end insert
', or
(ii) an arrestable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling—house.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 124

NEW GROUND OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: SECURE TENANCIES

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 75, line 37, leave out 'the violence of and insert
'violence or threats of violence by'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 99 to 101 and 108 to 112.

Mr. Jones: The amendments take on board three suggestions made in Committee. Amendment No. 98 will make the domestic violence ground for possession available where a partner has left the home permanently where violence has been threatened, not just when violence has taken place. I believe that provision to be entirely justified, as the constant threat of violence over a sustained period will often lead to a partner fleeing the family home.
Amendment No. 99 replaces the reference to violence or the threat of violence to a "child" with a reference to a "member of the family". That is a sensible widening of the scope of the provision to cover cases such as the example given in Committee of violence directed at an elderly mother-in-law, in circumstances in which it was reasonable for the wife to leave the dwelling with her mother because of violence on the part of her husband.
Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 remove the requirement in paragraph (d) that the remaining partner should be under-occupying the family home. It was put to us in Committee that domestic violence alone should be a sufficient ground for eviction. We think that that is right, and that the clause as drafted is too restrictive because it requires the remaining partner to be over-accommodated.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Raynsford: The Opposition welcome the amendments, which, as the Minister said, emanated from issues raised by Opposition amendments in Committee. As he has said, they will make it easier to obtain possession in cases in which there has been a threat of violence rather than actual violence. Moreover, there will be no restriction on possession to cases in which there is under-occupation of the property. That is right and proper, and we welcome the amendments.

Mrs. Maddock: As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has said, we discussed the issues in detail in Committee. I am very pleased that the Minister has tabled these important amendments, which will affect many people who are likely to suffer violence and be unable to escape from it. They have my support, and that of my hon. Friends.

Amendment agreed to

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 76, line 1, leave out 'child' and insert' member of the family'.
No. 100, in page 76, line 2, at end insert and'.
No. 101, in page 76, line 4, leave out from 'return' to end of line 7.—[Mr. Brandreth]

Clause 125

PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION OR TERMINATION

Amendments made: No. 102, in page 76, line 28, leave out 'annoyance to neighbours, etc.' and insert' other anti-social behaviour'.
No. 103, in page 77, line 46, leave out 'annoyance to neighbours, etc.' and insert' other anti-social behaviour'.
No. 104, in page 78, line 9, leave out 'after subsection (3) insert' and insert
'(grounds and orders for possession), for subsection (3) substitute—
(3) Where a notice under section 83 has been served on the tenant, the court shall not make such an order on any of those grounds above unless the ground is specified in the notice; but the grounds so specified may be altered or added to with the leave of the court.'.
No. 105, in page 78, line 13, at end insert—
'( ) In Schedule 2 to that Act, in Ground 16, after "notice of the proceedings for possession was served under section 83" insert" (or, where no such notice was served, the proceedings for possession were begun) ".'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 126

EXTENSION OF GROUND OF NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE TO ADJOINING OCCUPIERS &C

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 78, line 22, after of insert—(i) '.

No. 107, in page 78, line 23, at end insert
',or
(ii) an arrestable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling-house.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 127

NEW GROUND OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: ASSURED TENANCIES

Amendments made: No. 108, in page 78, line 32, leave out 'the violence of' and insert
'violence or threats of violence by'.
No. 109, in page 78, line 33, leave out from 'a' to 'immediately' in line 34 and insert
'member of the family of that partner who was residing with that partner'.
No. 110, in page 78, line 35, at end insert', and'.
No. 111, in page 78, line 37, leave out from 'return' to end of line 40.
No. 112, in page 78, line 41, leave out 'has' and insert
'and "member of the family" have'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 130

POWER OF ARREST FOR BREACH OF INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Amendment made: No. 113, in page 81, line 10, at end insert—

'( ) Nothing in this section prevents the grant of an injunction relating to other matters, in addition to those mentioned above, in relation to which no power of arrest is attached.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 131

POWER OF ARREST FOR BREACH OF OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY INJUNCTIONS

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 81, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert—
'(4) For the purposes of this section, any premises occupied as residential accommodation are qualifying premises.'.
The amendment would clarify the grounds on which an injunction with power of arrest could be obtained to cover persons other than local authority tenants. We are concerned that the local authority should be able to act effectively against anyone who is causing a nuisance and making their neighbours' lives a misery. We do not accept the premise, which has been to some extent set out by the Government in the title of part V, that such offences are only the responsibility of tenants. I remind the Minister that the title of part V is "Conduct of Tenants". We are very well aware that such anti-social conduct can be perpetrated by other people as well, and we think that it is insulting to tenants to suggest that only tenants can be guilty of such behaviour.
We therefore want to make it quite clear that the local authority or the landlord taking action in such cases can take action against people occupying any premises as residential accommodation, whether under a council tenancy or not. On many estates, where properties have been sold either as freehold houses or as leasehold flats, owners of properties live cheek by jowl with tenants and may themselves be guilty of anti-social behaviour. We want effective action against behaviour, whoever it is perpetrated by. The amendment would clarify those powers to ensure an even-handed approach in the fight against anti-social behaviour.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have much sympathy with the amendment. The Government have never tried to suggest that anti-social behaviour is suffered only by those who live in public sector rented property. In part V, we are trying to help local authorities to improve the quality of life on their estates by introducing a strong power to deal with troublemakers—whether tenants or non-tenants—who cause problems. Attaching a power of arrest to an injunction in this context is a new development. Our new power is a bold step and has been made available only once before, in cases of domestic violence.
It would be prudent to see where we are once things have bedded in and how effective the power has been before considering extending it more widely. Anti-social behaviour and what can be done about it are high on the agenda and, I assure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), will remain so. In future, if the Bill's powers work effectively, it may be appropriate to consider whether local authorities need similar, stronger powers to deal with the private sector or owner-occupiers.

Mr. Betts: Is it not an anomaly that there are powers in the Bill to deal with anti-social behaviour by tenants against tenants, by tenants against owner-occupiers, by owner-occupiers against tenants, but not by owner-occupiers against owner-occupiers? Removing the idea of qualifying premises would allow the latter category of anti-social behaviour to be covered by legislation.

Mr. Jones: I am trying to express sympathy with the point being made by the hon. Gentleman and his hon.


Friend the Member for Greenwich. I rule nothing out in what we need to consider further. I am suggesting that we should take this first step, see how it goes and then consider what more we might need to do.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) rightly made the good point that the current legislation is in this respect partly defective. We would therefore have been happier if the Minister had agreed to accept the amendment, but on the understanding that the matter will be kept under review and that there will be scope for further changes at a future date, and in view of the need to press on because other very important matters, especially the issues of homelessness, need to be considered, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 114, in page 81, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) Nothing in this section prevents the grant of an injunction relating to other matters, in addition to those mentioned above, in relation to which no power of arrest is attached.'.— [Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 133

ARREST AND REMAND

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 82, line 12, at end insert—
'A constable shall after making any such arrest forthwith inform the person on whose application the injunction was granted.'.
No. 116, in page 82, line 20, leave out from first 'in' to end of line 21 and insert
'circumstances such that a power of arrest could have been attached under section 130 or 131'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

New clause 1

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY IN HOUSING ALLOCATION FOR CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF PERSONS

'1.— A local housing authority shall ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that absolute priority in the allocation of housing accommodation is given to the following persons—

(a) a young person leaving care who is referred to the authority by a voluntary organisation;
(b) a person who is referred to the authority by a social services authority;
(c) a person who is referred to the authority by a health authority;
(d) a person who is referred to the authority by a registered social landlord or voluntary organisation providing temporary accommodation for single homeless people, and which has nomination rights with that authority;
(e) a person who is referred to the authority by a voluntary organisation which has nomination rights with that authority.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time

Madam deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following; New clause 2—Priority in housing allocation to be accorded to persons owed a duty under section 167 and 174—
'1.— The local housing authority shall ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that absolute priority in the allocation of housing accommodation is given to a person to whom the authority has a duty under sections 167 and 174.'.
New clause 27—Right to be allocated similar property—
'. Any social housing tenant shall have the right to request and be offered specifically identified identically sized property owned by the same social housing landlords; unless the landlord can show that that identified property is specifically needed for a particular tenant on the grounds of medical or disability needs.'.
Amendment No. 3, in clause 137, page 84, line 14, after '(1) ', insert—
'Except where otherwise directed by this Part or by Part Seven of this Act,'.
Amendment No. 4, in clause 138, page 85, line 2, at end insert—
'(1A) They do not apply to a person to whom the authority are subject to a duty under sections 167 and 174 (a person found to be homeless).'.
Government amendment No. 121, in clause 143, page 87, line 11, leave out '(2) ' and insert—
'(2A) As regards priorities, the scheme shall be framed so as to secure that reasonable preference is given to—

(a) people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions,
(b) people occupying housing accommodation which is temporary or occupied on insecure terms,
(c) families with dependent children,
(d) households consisting of or including someone who is expecting a child,
(e) households consisting of or including someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds, and
(f) households whose social or economic circumstances are such that they have difficulty in securing settled accommodation.
The scheme shall also be framed so as to secure that additional preference is given to households within paragraph (e) consisting of someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds who cannot reasonably be expected to find settled accommodation for themselves in the foreseeable future
(2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) specify further descriptions of people to whom preference is to be given as mentioned in subsection (2A), or
(b) amend or repeal any part of subsection (2A)
(2C) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify factors which a local housing authority shall not take into account in allocating housing accommodation.
(2D) As regards the procedure to be followed,'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, at end of paragraph (f), insert—
'(g) persons to whom the authority are, or have been, subject to a duty under sections 164, 167, 171 and 174 of this Act.'.
Government amendments Nos. 122, 124 and 125

Mrs. Maddock: We now come to what, for me, is without doubt the most important part of the Bill, because there can be no greater measure of housing need than being homeless. That principle seems to be common sense, but as I shall explain, the Government seem determined to disregard it in the Bill. Until very recently,


that principle was accepted by all parties in Parliament. It was first set down in law in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
That historic Act was the first ever to give homeless people a right to a home, and was introduced by the then Liberal Member of Parliament Stephen Ross, who is sadly no longer with us. The Act received support from hon. Members of all political parties, including many Labour Members—who, of course, were then in government—and many Conservative Members. Three Conservative Members were sponsors of the Bill.
Many hon. Members who supported that Act and spoke in favour of it in 1977, including then Ministers, thought of it as only the first step towards ending the dreadful honor of homelessness. It did not give a blanket right to be housed to all homeless people; it simply stated that certain groups were in priority need. The criteria that had to be met were quite harsh, such as being homeless through no direct fault of their own. People included in the priority need category were those in any household including or expecting a child, any household including an elderly person or a disabled person and any household made homeless as a result of an emergency, such as flood or fire.
Provision for homeless people before the 1977 provisions was patchy at best, and short-termism was the order of the day. The problem was seen not as a real need for long-term housing but as a temporary requirement caused by some inadequacy on the part of the family concerned.
The 1977 Act changed all that. Its raison d'être was to help individual families achieve a long-term solution to their individual crises of homelessness. Temporary accommodation cannot achieve such solutions, because it hinders children at school, makes it harder for people to get jobs and affects people's health—mentally and physically.
In short, homelessness is hell, and most people who become homeless do so as a direct or indirect result of losing their job. Homelessness means that people become excluded. It divides society. It shuts people out from opportunities for education, from meaningful work, often from health care, from financial support and, fundamentally, from decent housing.
Many homeless people become trapped in a downward spiral. Their escape routes are shut off by measures that have been enacted in recent years. Homelessness deprives people of their stake in society, and we know that it can drive them into crime.
The effects of homelessness often continue well after people have a roof over their head. By depriving people of the security of knowing that they have long-term accommodation, we make their lives much harder, which is the very last thing that families want when they have been made homeless.
I believe, as do many people outside the House, that we are turning the clock back to the days of "Cathy Come Home". A few years after that documentary was shown, a local authority housing officer was quoted—in a 1971 study of homeless families—as saying of homeless people:
I have to pay attention to the ordinary standards of decent people. We don't want these dead legs. They muck up the books and make life a misery for ordinary folk.

The days when local authorities could get away with such an attitude are now, thankfully, over.
The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 has not been perfect, but it has helped the more than 1.5 million people who have been accepted for rehousing by local authorities because of it.
The amendments and new clauses in this group are about who should be given reasonable preference in the allocation of social housing and, in particular, whether vulnerable homeless people should be included in lists of people who receive such preference. That is what my amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 121 is about. It is not an ideal solution. The only amendments that would keep intact the right of homeless people to long-term accommodation are in a group led by my amendment No. 35, due for discussion later. However, amendment (a) would deal with the ridiculous situation in which almost anything is accepted as a measure of housing need but homelessness.
9.30 pm
I have no argument with the criteria that the Government have included. I shall not attempt to vote against their amendment. But I cannot see what justification the Minister can have for saying that, while insanitary and insecure accommodation will give someone reasonable preference, homelessness will not. That is unless he is saying that being homeless is extremely insanitary and extremely insecure.
Many people outside the House are extremely worried about what is not in Government amendment No. 121. It is welcome as far as it goes, but it fails explicitly to include homeless people as a group to be given priority. Homelessness is a distinct form of need in itself, and it should be recognised in any allocations criteria. The Government amendment gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to prescribe the details of allocation procedures. I believe that adding homeless people to the new allocations criteria will result in a fairer system that will allow the needs of that group to be considered alongside the needs of others.
Amendment (a) is the most crucial amendment in the group. It is supported by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). I have also tabled several other amendments, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be sympathetic to them.
New clause 1 deals with several groups of people whom I and others outside the House believe should have priority above persons who have reasonable preference. I shall deal with each of those groups briefly. I start with young persons leaving care. We had much discussion about that group in Committee, and later I shall move an amendment to ensure that children who are dealt with under the Children Act 1989 are prioritised. If the Minister can tell me in response to the points that I make that he recognises that that group of children needs to be written down and recognised in the Bill, it may not be necessary for me to press a later amendment to a vote.
Other people who should be given priority are those referred by a social services authority to a housing authority, people referred by a health authority and people referred by a landlord providing temporary accommodation for single homeless people. All those groups were discussed in Committee, and I shall not do


so further at this point, other than to say that I hope that the Minister will listen carefully not only to me, but to all the groups outside that are pushing for those people to be given priority.
New clause 2 goes further than amendment (a) in ensuring that homeless households have priority over and above people who have reasonable preference in the allocation of housing. The arguments for that are the same as I have already outlined. I shall highlight only the Department of the Environment's recognition in the housing White Paper that homelessness is a searing experience as a reminder of how widespread the recognition of the problem of homelessness is.
New clause 27, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), has my firm support and I shall allow him to propound its merits.
Amendment No. 3 is to some extent a technical amendment that could stand in its own right, but it is designed to make it clear that any duty given to local authorities, particularly with regard to homeless persons, by part VI or part VII of the Bill will override the general allocation provisions.
Amendment No. 4 would exempt households to whom the local authority has a duty under the homeless persons provisions from the allocations criteria, with the clear indication that the duty to house them is separate from and additional to general allocation schemes operated by the local authority. I have no quarrel with the final three Government amendments and I welcome the Secretary of State's recognition that any changes to regulations on the matter should be passed by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. I pressed Ministers on that in Committee.
As Liberal Democrats, we recognise that there is a serious problem with the length of local authority waiting lists throughout the country and, especially, that problems in some regions lead to people blaming homeless people for the length of time that others wait on the list. The Government claim that the solution of putting homeless people into temporary accommodation and then on to a waiting list is the answer, but it will not make waiting lists any shorter or make any significant difference to the speed with which most people on them will be housed.
The Government's proposals will not reduce housing need or demand and they will certainly not increase housing supply. Some of their proposals have immediately led to a reduction in the supply of social housing. In that way, they are failing everyone in housing need.
The challenge for us all is to strike a balance between the long-term housing needs of everyone who is adequately housed in Britain today and the immediate requirements of homeless families. Liberal Democrats believe that that can be done by a single route of entry, but only if certain conditions prevail: that all homeless households are registered on the waiting list as soon as they present themselves to the local authority; that the local authority has a duty to find them temporary accommodation of as stable a nature as possible for as long as it takes; that they are found permanent accommodation or find their own accommodation in the private sector; and that councils should be able properly to recognise the problems of homelessness and the inadequacies of temporary accommodation in the point systems that they use for allocating tenancies.
The last of those is what amendment (a) is about. It is about not queue jumping, but putting some fairness and common sense back into the Bill. It is about allowing local authorities to consider the full picture of a person's position and ensuring that people who become homeless can be helped back on to their feet and given some stability at the earliest possible moment.
In their 1989 homelessness review, the Government concluded:
there is little doubt that
homeless
people would and should expect to have priority in any system of housing allocation based on need".
My colleagues and I are trying to ensure that that principle is in the Bill. I intend to press amendment (a) to a vote and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support it.
I am sorry only that certain hon. Members here tonight believe that this is not an interesting topic. There are people sleeping on the streets and, if we are not careful, we shall undo all the progress that we have made in recent years with the support of all parties, the Churches and all groups that have to deal with homelessness. If we are not careful, we shall undo all the work of those groups over a number of years. I strongly urge all hon. Members who care about homelessness to support amendment (a).

Mr. Raynsford: Homelessness is one of the crucial housing and social issues of our time, and it is right that the House should have an opportunity for an albeit brief debate on those crucial elements in the Bill. Sadly, homelessness is and has been for the past few years all too evident a feature of life in Britain. It is a scar on our society, and blights the lives of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. It is an affront to any civilised society to see the extent of homelessness in Britain today.
The fact that homelessness exists on such a scale is testimony to the failure of the Government's housing policy to ensure the provision of adequate homes for people in need. It is no coincidence that the past five years have seen the lowest output of new homes for renting of any period since the end of the second world war—an average of 28,000 new homes a year, compared with more than 120,000 new rented homes a year during the five years of the Labour Government.
The failure to provide adequately for housing needs has inevitably led to the appalling problems of homelessness that we face today. But rather than addressing those problems directly, with measures to increase the output of rented housing, and responding to people's needs, the Government are behaving in a shabby and disreputable way, by seeking to reduce local authorities' statutory responsibilities towards the homeless.
In summary, the Government are making the victims of the homelessness crisis pay for the Government's own failure to provide adequately for people's housing needs. They are making an entirely unjustified attack on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which has provided the statutory framework for the relief of homelessness throughout the past 18 years.
As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said, that Act was passed with support from hon. Members from all parties. Although essentially it was passed by the Labour Government with the active


involvement of Stephen Ross, the Liberal Member who promoted it as a private Member, it also attracted support from some Conservative Members.
That legislation has been reviewed twice during the lifetime of the Government—in the early stages of the Government, in the early 1980s, when the current Deputy Prime Minister was Secretary of State for the Environment, and again in the late 1980s, when the late Lord Ridley and Mr. Chris Patten, who is now Governor of Hong Kong, were Secretary of State for the Environment.
Both those reviews concluded that the legislation was working well, and that there was no need for change. It is a comment on today's Tory party that it now sees the need to interfere, and to damage legislation that the Government's predecessors regarded as working well. There is no justification for what the Government are doing; there has been no objective change in circumstances to merit it.
The Bill is a mean, shabby piece of legislation that will withdraw assistance from many people in need by reducing local authorities' existing obligations, thus facilitating matters for local authorities that do not wish to accept their responsibilities towards the homeless. It will also break the link established by the 1977 Act, between the provision of housing for the homeless and that for all other categories of need.
Bringing the homeless into the mainstream, rather than condemning them to a period in temporary accommodation, was one of the most important gains made under the 1977 Act. That Act put an end to some of the most disgraceful features of the treatment of the homeless, so well portrayed in the television programme that shocked the nation in the 1960s, "Cathy Come Home"—practices such as the splitting of families and the degradation of families, and the use of squalid and disgusting former workhouses and other forms of temporary accommodation for the homeless.
The fact that the 1977 Act got away from that and concentrated on the permanent housing of homeless people was one of the great gains that it made. Yet the Government are now acting directly to reverse that, and seeking to put homeless people into temporary accommodation again.
Believe it or not, if the Bill gets through Parliament, it will make it impossible for local authorities to provide direct rehousing for homeless people, other than in the exceptional circumstance of their already being registered on the housing waiting list and having sufficient points to qualify—or rather, to use the slightly curious term that the Minister used in Committee, of their having "almost enough" points to qualify. The Minister has never clarified how that definition would work; we know that it is a mess, and will prove unworkable.
The Government's action is a dereliction of their responsibility to one of the most vulnerable sections of our community. It shows that today's Tory party has turned its back on the poor, the homeless and the vulnerable and demonstrates the Government's failure to ensure that the needs of all members of our society are properly met. I pledge that the Labour party, on its return to government, will ensure that there is a proper and effective statutory framework to guarantee the rights of homeless people and make sure that they get proper treatment and help in the form of permanent accommodation.
9.45 pm
We shall restore the framework created in 1977 if the Government succeed in their intention of dismantling it. Whatever happens tonight, I hope that this legislation will not pass unscathed in another place. It runs against all our country's instincts for fairness that underpinned the 1977 Act, which gained enormous support throughout the country—as has its retention. When the Government consulted on the proposal to change the law, more than 10,000 people responded. Almost all said that the legislation should stay, that the Government should abandon their proposals and that the 1977 Act was working well. It is only the Government who want to pursue their proposals. They are flying in the face of all informed opinion, the voluntary organisations that work with the homeless, the local authorities and the people who know and care most. Their proposals are wrong-headed and will not work or last. We will vote firmly tonight against those measures because they are wrong and we want in their place a proper framework to ensure the maintenance of responsibilities towards the homeless.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) prefaced her remarks with the words "as Liberal Democrats". I might say, "as Conservatives" or "as Labour"—new or old—because this issue engages and concerns the whole House. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) made some accusations about whether we cared. I do not claim such exclusivity for my concerns. They are general. There is a legitimate political argument about how we translate them into practical politics. It is not legitimate to bandy about qualitative concerns to try to show that we have more concern than other people.
I spent part of this morning dealing with people who operate the rough sleepers initiative. That deals with the street homeless—the worst-off people in the most difficult circumstances, who are often difficult to help. I am concerned about that and I want to drive that policy forward, but I do not claim that, if I were to be replaced, it would come to a halt. The determination to tackle the problems is real and goes across the House. I stake my claim on an ecumenical basis for what I believe is an essential policy.
I would like Opposition Members to point out where the difference lies, because in many respects it is more apparent than real. There were concerns, and I hope that I have tried to meet them. I agreed to put the allocations criteria in the Bill and to attach a power to change them by affirmative resolution so that, if it became necessary to make subsequent changes, it could be done. I have never claimed biblical certainty. We are trying to deliver something. There may be occasions when it has to be amended. That is part of normal political life if one is sensible about what one tries to put forward.
I also changed the period of duty to two years because I thought that it was more reasonable. We are left with what I believe is the one central issue that divides the House. There is no point in denying that it does. I believe that it is reasonable to seek to distinguish between people who become homeless as a manifestation of a deep-seated, long-term need and who will require long-term help, and people who become homeless because they are overwhelmed by a particular circumstance, but who, if they are given emergency help, may be able to climb out of the


difficulty. I recognise that a great many people will fall into the former category, but some 18 per cent. of those who are accepted as statutorily homeless never take up social housing, so there are people who fall into the latter category. Everyone needs emergency help; no one is proposing to tear that away. Indeed, the Awua judgment, which I have never prayed in aid—we intended to reform the legislation before it, so I am not prepared to make a claim that is not honest—has virtually removed the safety net in its entirety. So the practical effect of the proposals is to replace that safety net.
All those who find themselves in that situation need that emergency help, but we need to find out whether they need the long-term accommodation and help that carries with it the right to buy and, perhaps, succession rights, or whether they can subsequently manage by themselves, which means that the social housing can be made available for those who need it on a long-term basis. That is a reasonable and honourable proposition.

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend has certainly moved since Second Reading, when widespread concerns were expressed. He will have seen the note that I let him have from Shelter housing aid in Taunton, which pointed out that the placing of families in short-term private rented accommodation would result in greater insecurity. It emphasised that 38 per cent. of those accepted as homeless applicants in Taunton Deane in my constituency had lost private rented tenancies compared with an average for the whole country of 11 per cent., according to DOE figures. That concerns me very much. What assurances can my hon. Friend give me?

Mr. Curry: I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns. He will know that I have had extensive discussions with Shelter and many of the voluntary organisations. My response is twofold. First, if there is not suitable private sector accommodation, people in those circumstances can be accommodated in local authority or housing association stock. Secondly, to try to make more private sector accommodation available, we are discussing allowing local authorities to lease such accommodation for 10 years, so that they can exercise more effective management under the capital financing rules—those have been widely welcomed. I should be perfectly willing to discuss a particular circumstance in my hon. Friend's constituency with him, because circumstances differ across the country.
The Government are proposing a sensible measure. I recognise that it has raised a dispute. We are seeking to help the people in the greatest need. I am not concerned about morality, or about any of the emotional overtones that people sometimes falsely bring to a debate. There is a real emotion about this debate, which is about people in need. My focus is to help people in need. That is my sole criterion, and I therefore commend our amendments to the House. I ask the House to support us in putting those allocations criteria, as they stand, on the face of the Bill. I am confident that they will embrace the circumstances and pick up the needs that we must identify.
We had a serious debate in Committee and I have no doubt that that debate will continue. Of course, I shall continue to discuss with colleagues across the Floor of the House how the legislation is working. I shall be ready to make changes if it appears, in practice, that it is not working as we intended. That is a sensible precaution in

politics. Despite being a low Methodist and not having biblical truth in this matter—a primitive—I shall not enter into an argument with the hon. Member for Greenwich. I also have a quotation. Perhaps it is a curious measure, but there we are. We have had a debate across the Floor of the House. I think that the hon. Member for Greenwich was brought up in Raynsford hall and I was brought up in a council property—it is a funny old world.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Betts: I shall not go into the Labour party's general opposition to the dismantling of the 1977 legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has already done so very well, both here and in Committee.
I shall raise three issues about the relationship between the allocations criteria that the Minister intends to put on the face of the Bill and the rights of homeless families. The first is an issue that came up in Committee, when the Minister said that a homeless family who got nearly enough points to be at the top of the list could nevertheless be offered a permanent home immediately by the local authority.
The Minister said that he would respond and he has done so in writing to a number of questions that we raised in Committee. I thank him for doing so. Generally, he has clarified issues, but he has done nothing to clarify this issue. Indeed, he has obscured it further. He said that, if a homeless family has nearly enough points to be at the top of the list but is not right at the top, the authority does not
have to allocate housing mechanistically to the person at the very top of the list.
If local authorities started allocating houses to people who are not at the top of the list, there would quickly be a lot of complaints to the ombudsman about their allocations policy.
The Minister went on to say:
I understand that, in the sorts of situations that Mr Betts had in mind, some authorities would treat the household as a special case on an exceptional basis, and would give it additional priority; there would be nothing to prevent them from doing that in the future.
It is not acceptable for there to be a complete dismantling of the homeless persons legislation, to be replaced by the Minister saying that there is nothing to stop local authorities giving additional priority to homeless families on an exceptional basis. That is not the current fundamental right of homeless families. That is not acceptable, and it will not be workable in practice.
I draw the Minister's attention to two other issues where the relationship between the allocations policy and the rights of homeless families appears to be flawed. The Minister said about allocations policy that authorities should give reasonable preference to people who are living in unsatisfactory housing conditions. The irony of the situation is that a homeless family who are living in housing that it is unreasonable for them to continue to occupy can be categorised as homeless and can receive automatic accommodation—according to the Minister's rehousing allocation policy.
However, a homeless family who have no home at all cannot be rehoused under the allocations policy because there is no reference in the policy to the rights of homeless families to be awarded points under the allocation system. It is nonsensical that an allocations policy can give


preference to someone who is homeless but who has a home that is unsatisfactory, but cannot give preference to someone who has no home at all. That stupidity is contained in the Minister's policy, which he is proposing tonight.
Finally, paragraph (b) of the allocations policy says that people who are occupying housing accommodation that is temporary or occupied on unsecured terms can have preference. That means that a homeless family who would now be eligible for rehousing with permanent accommodation straight away can get preference only once they have been given temporary accommodation by the local authority. In other words, a homeless family have to be moved into temporary accommodation before they can get priority for permanent accommodation. Moving homeless families around from one area to another adds to family insecurity, adds different schools for their children and adds other insecurities in relation to relationships. The Government are supposed to espouse family life, but this proposal would destroy families.
I hope that the amendments are accepted tonight, particularly amendment (a), because it would mean that, despite the rise in homeless families under the Government's allocation policy, they would be protected in a way that they are not currently.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) did not deal with one point; however, she made perfectly proper points about the difference between the Minister's approach and our approach. My hon. Friend sustained the tradition of Stephen Ross; that is a perfectly valid view. Many people believe—this is not a party point—that the one thing that would provide the opportunity for those who are homeless to be more adequately housed would be if the Government restored the substantial cuts in housing investment that have cut housing more than any other public investment sector since the Government have been in office.
I put a separate issue to the Minister in relation to new clause 27. Five years ago, or thereabouts, an elderly tenant on a council estate in Bermondsey, the Arnold estate, asked to move to a vacant property—the same type of property that she was already in; a one-bedroom property—next door to her elderly sister. They wanted to live next door to each other so that if they were sick in the night, they could bang on the wall. The council said that it could not allocate the property to her and that she would have to go into the pool and that she would come up if she was lucky. The property was allocated to someone else. Eventually, we persuaded the council that that was an inhumane way to proceed. When the property next became vacant, the council said that it would move the lady in, but it was too late because her sister had died.
We believe that when someone lives on an estate and an identical property comes up—no bigger, no grander, no more expensive—that is more suitable because of their immobility, disability or illness, they should be able to move into it, thereby releasing their property into the housing pool for allocation to someone else. That should happen without prejudice to those who need to be allocated a particular property on a council estate.
One of the great iniquities of the allocation of council housing is that it is done in an inhumane way and that existing tenants cannot move where their family needs

and their requirements require them to be. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to what is a new clause rooted in practical experience in south London.

Question, That the clause be read a Second time, put and negatived.

New clause 25

CONDITION OF OFFERED PROPERTY

'. Social housing shall not be allocated and prospective tenants shall not be required to accept an offer or be penalised for refusing to accept an offer unless the offered property is, at the time of the offer, in a state which would at that time be reasonable for a tenant immediately to occupy.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 26—Independent appeals system for allocating social housing—
'. Prospective tenants shall have the right of an independent appeal against any offer that the tenant believes to be unreasonable.'.

10 pm

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
Question agreed to.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Hughes: I am not sure whether the noes had it in the previous decision, but I shall let that pass. I think that the ayes did have it this time, because otherwise we would be in some difficulty.
First, I shall speak about a significant day-to-day problem of prospective tenants of council houses. At the moment, people can—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many private conversations going on. If Members want to have private conversations, they can go outside.

Mr. Hughes: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are all trying to go as quickly as possible. I am conscious that other colleagues have entered the Chamber for a vote, but obviously there are a fair number of amendments and new clauses.
I make a very simple proposal—that, if someone is made an offer of a property by a social landlord—either a council or housing association—they should not be expected to accept the offer, and they certainly should not be penalised for refusing the offer, if, at the time that the property was offered, it was not in a fit state to occupy.
One of the problems at the moment is that, understandably, councils are desperately trying to reach high targets of re-letting and have few void or empty properties. In the interests of trying to meet its targets, my local authority of Southwark, a Labour-run authority with the largest local housing stock in London, regularly offers property that is obviously not in a fit state for anyone to move into. It says to people, "Here is your offer; you must take it; we shall then clear it up and sort it out."
People do not believe that, and it is very unrealistic to expect someone to say, "This is my dream home, " or even, "This is my less than dream home, " if it is in a filthy state, needs a great deal of work, needs to be cleared out and so on. I seek to establish that people who are offered public sector or social housing stock should not be required to accept the offer until the housing is in a fit state to be occupied.
The second issue is that, when someone is made an offer, at the moment they may appeal. They may say, "I do not want to take it because it is not in a fit state, not habitable, unsafe, the electrics have not been done, the building has not been done." They have an internal appeal, if they are lucky. If they are allowed to, they can say, "I want to appeal, " and someone, hidden away somewhere in the council, decides whether the offer was reasonable.
There is no independence; the appeal is not conducted by people who are not part of the same landlord authority. Often, the appeal is carried out without the tenant being present; the tenant does not see the process or know about the process. All the tenant knows is that the appeal has been turned down.
Real issues, in inner London boroughs like mine, require people to be made decent offers of property that they can accept. I understand that the Minister may not want to accept these two new clauses, but I should be grateful if he would say what we can do to ensure that accommodation is offered in a fit state to be received and that there is an independent system for working out whether an offer is reasonable.

Mr. Curry: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Yesterday and in debate earlier today, he referred to the problems in his constituency. As he suspected, I cannot accept the new clauses as they stand, but I am willing to discuss his concerns and how the law would operate in practice—particularly in the circumstances of his constituency to which he referred. In light of that assurance, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that properties are often declined when offered because they are in a filthy state? Does he agree that it is not unreasonable to expect the housing authority to inspect the property and, if necessary, to arrange for it to be cleaned properly before it is offered? The new tenant could then move into a reasonably clean property.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. I shall reflect on ways in which we might achieve that purpose.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which is entirely reasonable. Like the hon.

Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), I will be happy to discuss the matter further with the Minister, as I believe that it is within our power to remedy the problem. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 137

ALLOCATION OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 84, line 39, at end insert—
'( ) The provisions of this Part do not apply to the allocation of housing accommodation by a local housing authority to two or more persons jointly if—

(a) one or more of them is a person within subsection (5) (a), (b) or (c), and
(b) none of the others is excluded from being a qualifying person by regulations under section 139(2).'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 118.

Mr. Curry: The amendments deal with exemptions from the requirement for housing to be allocated through the register and the allocation process. They allow existing tenants to become joint tenants without having to go through the housing register and the allocation process. They are commonsense measures which ensure that allocations work effectively, and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 138

CASES WHERE PROVISIONS ABOUT ALLOCATION DO NOT APPLY

Amendment made: No. 118, in page 85, line 31, after 'excluded' insert
'—

(a) in relation to specified descriptions of persons, or
(b)". —[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 140

THE HOUSING REGISTER

Amendment made: No. 119, in page 86, line 8, at end insert 'housing'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 142

INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING REGISTER

Amendment made: No. 120, in page 86, line 39. leave out from beginning to end of line 42 and insert—
'( ) to be given such general information as will enable him to assess how long it is likely to be before housing accommodation appropriate to his needs becomes available for allocation to him.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 143

ALLOCATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ALLOCATION SCHEME

Amendment proposed: No. 121, in page 87, line 11, leave out '(2) ' and insert—


'(2A) As regards priorities, the scheme shall be framed so as to secure that reasonable preference is given to—

(a) people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions,
(b) people occupying housing accommodation which is temporary or occupied on insecure terms,
(c) families with dependent children,
(d) households consisting of or including someone who is expecting a child,
(e) households consisting of or including someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds, and
(f) households whose social or economic circumstances are such that they have difficulty in securing settled accommodation.
The scheme shall also be framed so as to secure that additional preference is given to households within paragraph (e) consisting of someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds who cannot reasonably be expected to find settled accommodation for themselves in the foreseeable future.
(2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) specify further descriptions of people to whom preference is to be given as mentioned in subsection (2A), or
(b) amend or repeal any part of subsection (2A).
(2C) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify factors which a local housing authority shall not take into account in allocating housing accommodation.
(2D) As regards the procedure to be followed, '.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), at end of paragraph (f), insert—
'(g) persons to whom the authority are, or have been, subject to a duty under sections 164, 167, 171 and 174 of this Act.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 304.

Division No. 116]
[10.07 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Burden, Richard


Adams, Mrs Irene
Byers, Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Austin-Walker, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Chidgey, David


Barron, Kevin
Chisholm, Malcolm


Battle, John
Church, Judith


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benton, Joe
Coffey, Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Berry, Roger
Connarty, Michael


Betts, Clive
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blunkett, David
Corbett, Robin


Boateng, Paul
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boyes, Roland
Corston, Jean


Bradley, Keith
Cousins, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cox, Tom


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)





Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro &amp; S'worth)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Keen, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dewar, Donald
Khabra, Piara S


Dixon, Don
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Eagle, Ms Angela
Litherland, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Livingstone, Ken


Etherington, Bill
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Loyden, Eddie


Fatchett, Derek
Lynne, Ms Liz


Faulds, Andrew
McAllion, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McAvoy, Thomas


Fisher, Mark
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCartney, Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
McFall, John


Foulkes, George
McGrady, Eddie


Fraser, John
McKelvey, William


Fyfe, Maria
Mackinlay, Andrew


Galbraith, Sam
McLeish, Henry


Galloway, George
Maclennan, Robert


Gapes, Mike
McMaster, Gordon


Garrett, John
MacShane, Denis


George, Bruce
Maddock, Diana


Gerrard, Neil
Mahon, Alice


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mandelson, Peter


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gordon, Mildred
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Graham, Thomas
Martlew, Eric


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meacher, Michael


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gunnell, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hain, Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Hall, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harvey, Nick
Morgan, Rhodri


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hodge, Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Hara, Edward


Hoyle, Doug
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pendry, Tom


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Illsley, Eric
Pike, Peter L


Ingram, Adam
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Janner, Greville
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Primarolo, Dawn


Johnston, Sir Russell
Purchase, Ken






Quin, Ms Joyce
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Radice, Giles
Straw, Jack


Randall, Stuart
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reid, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trickett, Jon


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis


Rooker, Jeff
Tyler, Paul


Rooney, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wallace, James


Rowlands, Ted
Walley, Joan


Ruddock, Joan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Salmond, Alex
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Watson, Mike


Sheerman, Barry
Welsh, Andrew


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Clare
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wray, Jimmy


Snape, Peter
Wright, Dr Tony


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spellar, John



Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Simon Hughes.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carttiss, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Beggs, Roy
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Sir Graham
Elletson, Harold


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burt, Alistair
Evennett, David


Butcher, John
Faber, David


Butler, Peter
Fabricant, Michael





Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lidington, David


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Luff, Peter


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew


Fry, Sir Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Madel, Sir David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Page, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robathan, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sackville, Tom


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)






Shersby, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Sims, Roger
Trend, Michael


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trotter, Neville


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Sir Keith
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wakden, George


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waller, Gary


Spring, Richard
Ward, John


Sproat Iain
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waterson, Nigel


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stephen, Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


 Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Willetts, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wolfson, Mark


Thomason, Roy
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thornton, Sir Malcolm



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Noes:


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Michael Bates and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Gary Streeter.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 122, in page 87, line 13, leave out 'any such regulations' and insert
'the above provisions, and to any regulations made under them, '.

No. 123, in page 87, line 14, at end insert—
'( ) Before adopting an allocation scheme, or making an alteration to their scheme reflecting a major change of policy, a local housing authority shall—

(a) send a copy of the draft scheme, or proposed alteration, to every registered social landlord with which they have nomination arrangements (see section 137(4)), and
(b) afford those persons a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposals.'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 148

REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 124, in page 88, line 7, leave out 'which' and insert—
'( ) No regulations shall be made under section 143(2B) (regulations amending provisions about priorities in allocating housing accommodation) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
( ) Any other regulations under this Part'.

No. 125, in page 88, line 9, after 'Part' insert
'may contain such incidental, supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State appropriate, and'.—[Mr. Curry.]

New clause 8

POWER EXERCISABLE AFTER MINIMUM PERIOD OF DUTY UNDER SECTION 167

'.—(1) Where a local housing authority have been subject to the

duty under section 167 in relation to a person until the end of the minimum period, they may continue to secure that accommodation is available for his occupation.
(2) They shall not do so unless they are satisfied on a review under this section that—

(a) he has a priority need,
(b) there is no other suitable accommodation available for occupation by him in their district, and
(c) he wishes the authority to continue securing that accommodation is available for his occupation;
and they shall not continue to do so for more than two years at a time unless they are satisfied on a further review under this section as to those matters.
The review shall be carried out towards the end of the minimum period, or subsequent two year period, with a view to enabling the authority to make an assessment of the likely situation at the end of that period.
(3) They shall cease to do so if events occur such that, by virtue of section 167(6) or (7), they would cease to be subject to any duty under that section.
(4) Where an authority carry out a review under this section they shall make such inquiries as they consider appropriate to determine—

(a) whether they are satisfied as to the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (c), and
(b) whether any of the events referred to in subsection (3) has occurred;
and on completing the review they shall notify the applicant of their determination and of whether they propose to exercise, or continue to exercise, their power under this section.
(5) The authority may at any time, whether in consequence of a review or otherwise, give notice to the person concerned that they propose to cease exercising their power under this section in his case.
(6) The notice must specify—

(a) the day on which they will cease exercising their power under this section, and
(b) any action that they intend to take as a result,
and must be given not less than the prescribed period before the day so specified.'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 168

PERIODIC REVIEW OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN DUTY OWED

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 96, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 153

WHETHER IT IS REASONABLE TO CONTINUE TO OCCUPY ACOMMODATION

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 89, line 15, at end insert—
'(1A) It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if the local housing authority for the area in which the accommodation is situated are satisfied that it is unfit for human habitation within the meaning of section 604 of the Housing Act 1985'.
The amendment would ensure that occupiers of housing unfit for human habitation would automatically be dealt with as homeless. It would avoid the uncertainty that can arise if a council's housing officers first decide that a property is not reasonable for continued habitation and designate it as unfit—but, when the occupier applies as


homeless, the homelessness officers of the same council must ask themselves again whether the property is reasonable to occupy.
Previously, there has been a failure to dovetail the unfitness and homelessness tests, which has caused litigation. The amendment introduces a simple, workable and uniform test. I hope that the Minister will see it that way and accept the amendment.

Mr. Curry: I acknowledge the hon. Lady's concerns, but I cannot go as far as accepting her amendment. The provisions that establish whether a person is homeless are broadly stated in part III. They provide that, in considering the appellant's circumstances, housing authorities must have regard to general housing conditions in the area.
That sensible provision is rooted in the circumstances— which will particularly concern the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in his constituency—and acknowledges that some housing authorities will be under great pressure from a lot of people seeking housing assistance. It would be unreasonable to expect an authority to assess the condition of a person's housing against an ideal absolute standard if the general condition of housing for large numbers of people presented some difficulties. An absolute standard would not be a practical proposition. I appreciate the sentiments that animate the hon. Lady's amendment, but it would not make a sensible addition to the Bill.

Mrs. Maddock: In the interests of progressing business, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 160

ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in page 91, leave out from line 34 to line 2 on page 92.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 14, in page 91, line 39, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 41 and insert
'shall not apply to a person who is not unlawfully in the UK'.

Mrs. Maddock: Amendment No. 148 would remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations excluding persons from abroad from receiving housing assistance under part VII—a proposal that has the support of many people who have to deal with persons who come to our country and are in housing need.
Clause 160 empowers the Secretary of State to exclude certain groups of people from emergency housing, and, although they are not defined, the Department proposes that they should be groups who are ineligible for housing benefit. We want to ensure that they still receive housing advice. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that proposal, which has widespread support.

Mr. Curry: The issue raised by these amendments is whether people who have sought leave to enter the country on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds should be entitled to set aside

that undertaking. The immigration rules state explicitly that the homelessness legislation falls within the definition of public funds.
People who have applied for asylum after entering the country will have obtained their leave to enter by satisfying the entry clearance officer that they have the resources to maintain themselves. Only 5 per cent, of asylum applications are eventually accepted; even allowing for exceptional leave granted on compassionate grounds, the refusal rate is still 79 per cent.
The purpose of the homelessness legislation is to ensure that families of vulnerable individuals who lose their home through no fault of their own are provided with a proper safety net. It is one component of a wider set of welfare provisions that we have in place to help people through a crisis and continue their normal lives, but it focuses, naturally and rightly, on people who are settled in this country.
I appreciate the hon. Lady's concerns, but she will know that I must ensure that there is consistency between the proposed legislation and legislation passed by the House. She will understand, therefore, that I must reject her amendments.

Mrs. Maddock: I understand what the Minister has said, but I wish to press the amendment. If the Government want to shout it down, they can do so.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 163

PRIORITY NEED FOR ACCOMMODATION

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 93, line 27, at end insert—
'(e) any young person aged 16 or 17'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 7, in page 93, line 27, at end insert—
'(e) a person who qualifies for advice and assistance under section 24(2) of the Children Act 1989 or who is taken to be in need under section 17(10) of that Act.'.

Mrs. Maddock: These amendments are about giving priority need to young people and to children.
Amendment No. 6 says that 16 and 17-year-olds should be classed as priority need when they seek advice from local government.
Amendment No. 7 is supported by many children's societies, including Barnardo's. In the past two days, I have received a letter from Centre Point, which is very anxious about this amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure that young people leaving care, or those assessed as being in priority need under the Children Act 1989, are regarded as having priority for homeless assistance. The amendment is supported by Barnardo's, the Children's Society, NCH Action for Children, Family Service Units, the St. Christopher Fellowship, the Catholic Children's Society, and Save the Children.
Centre Point has pointed out that, during 1994–95, despite the Children Act, 38 per cent, of homeless young people seen by Centre Point were 17 years old or younger, and that 86 per cent, of them had been forced to leave home.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] I am hearing sedentary interventions that say that this is rubbish. That is precisely the attitude that causes young people to be scapegoated.
In my area, before Christmas, when a charity made an appeal to help young homeless people and give them places in a hostel where they would get help to continue their education and do their job, it received hate mail. We have heard from some hon. Members tonight who think that, if young people are homeless, it is their own fault, or that they wished to leave their family. I suggest that those hon. Members go to a hostel, as I did, and speak to them. Are hon. Members saying that Centre Point—a charity that I thought we all recognised does good work—is wrong? I can supply them with the excellent documentation that it has provided.
We are asking that the Minister amends the Bill to ensure that legislation works together, and that the Children Act means something. There is evidence throughout the country that the Housing Act and the Children Act do not work together properly. This is our opportunity. The amendment has the support of many hon. Members in the House, and of all the groups I mentioned.
I hope that the Minister will take the amendment on board. It is sensible and simple; all he has to do is accept it on behalf of all young people who need help to mount the ladder of life rather than being pushed off the bottom rung.

Mr. Curry: I would be sorry if the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) pressed the amendment to a vote, thereby encapsulating a difference of view that I do not think exists in practice.
The choice is between a statutory entitlement and finding a more integrated approach to tackling a problem that I fully recognise. My own dealings with the rough sleepers initiative have shown me how difficult life can be for some young people. I know that, even in my rural constituency, youngsters, particularly those going from a background of care into foyer projects, need considerable support to give them the confidence—if nothing else—to cope with life.
The question does not really relate to the concerns involved; it relates to whether one route is better than the other. We need a comprehensive approach. For example, young people under 18 cannot hold a legal estate in land, so there are practical problems in giving them tenancies. There is some doubt about whether they can live by themselves, unsupported, at that age. Entitlement under the homelessness legislation does exist for that group: under clause 163, anyone who is vulnerable has priority need. We do, however, need to consider carefully what can be done to give young people better access to permanent social housing.
The proposals on referrals would allow local housing authorities to make accommodation available to young people referred to them by an appropriate welfare agency, where there is enough support, without having to compete with others on the housing register. In the light of the consultations on regulations, I am seriously considering the possibility of requiring a local authority to give an entitlement to register to anyone over the age of 18 who has

been living in the area for a specified period. Anyone in that group to whom a reasonable preference should be afforded under the allocation criteria could expect to receive serious consideration for social housing under the register.
The homelessness code of guidance was written before the Children Act came into effect. It needs updating in the light of experience gained from its operation, and to link with the new provisions in the Bill. I shall use the opportunity to make clear the real need for the different services to work together to meet young people's needs, and to suggest how that may be done. We need the co-operation of the Department of Health, which has the main responsibility for the Children Act.
I believe that that integrated approach is right. If, while we are preparing the package, it becomes apparent that the current legislation is inadequate, or is being intepreted too restrictively by some housing authorities, I shall be prepared to use the order-making power to ensure that the legislation takes proper account of the needs of vulnerable young people. I think that that is the right way forward.
I do not want to have to advise the House to reject the amendment, because that would suggest the existence of a divide between us, which, in practical terms, does not exist.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister do one more thing? He must try to persuade some of his Back Benchers that young people leaving home are not leaving some luxury accommodation where all is happiness and light and everyone gets on swimmingly in order to move, at public expense, to equally luxurious accommodation where they can be on their own.
The Minister knows from his experience, as I know from mine, that most young people who leave home end up in a much more precarious position. The accommodation with which they may be provided, under statutory instrument or other legislation, is normally hostel accommodation. It is by nature temporary, and involves living with other people. It is not ideal; it is not long-term. We must get away from the idea that this is a jolly good thing which young people use to exploit the system.
The Minister's experience, like mine, will tell him that we risk seeing more and more young people, for whatever reason, leaving home and becoming the sort of people with whom the rough sleepers initiative must deal. All the centres I visited in the winter told me that more young people were turning up than in previous years. The state is not suddenly giving young people independence and a life of luxury. If we can make that message understood, we can start to respond in a way that ensures that, whatever the law says, we treat youngsters as a priority. If we can make them secure when they are young, they are far more likely to become secure adults who bring up secure families in secure homes.

Mr. Curry: That is one reason why the winter shelter programme will be extended next year to provide up to 450 beds—with, of course, specialist provision for those in particular need.

Mrs. Maddock: I know that the Minister takes the matter very seriously, and I hear what he says. If hon. Members who have been dismissive look at the figures, they will see that the majority of young people who have presented themselves as homeless left their families because they had been abused—often physically, and


often sexually. The issue is incredibly important. The Minister has made a very good case for amendment No. 7, and I shall press it to a vote.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 93, line 27, at end insert:
'(e) a person who qualifies for advice and assistance under section 24(2) of the Children Act 1989 or who is taken to be in need under section 17(10) of that Act.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 291.

Division No. 117]
[10.37pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Alistair


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davidson, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tryNE)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Chris (L'Boro &amp; S'worth)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Ashton, Joe
Denham, John


Austin-Walker, John
Dewar, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Frank


Battle, John
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Eagle, Ms Angela


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Eastham, Ken


Bell, Stuart
Etherington, Bill


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, Andrew F
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Benton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Berry, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Betts, Clive
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blunkett, David
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galloway, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
George, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Caborn, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Graham, Thomas


Cann, Jamie
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chidgey, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Church, Judith
Gunnell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harvey, Nick


Coffey, Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Corston, Jean
Hodge, Margaret


Cousins, Jim
Hoey, Kate


Cox, Tom
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Dafis, Cynog
Hoyle, Doug





Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hutton, John
O'Hara, Edward


Illsley, Eric
Olner, Bill


Ingram, Adam
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Pope, Greg


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Randall, Stuart


Jowell, Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Keen, Alan
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rogers, Allan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Robert
Smith, Chris (Isl'on S &amp; F'sbury)


McFall, John
Smith, LIew (Blaenau Gwent)


McGrady, Eddie
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spellar, John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McLeish, Henry
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Straw, Jack


MacShane, Denis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Maddock, Diana
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mahon, Alice
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mandelson, Peter
Timms, Stephen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Touhig, Don


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Trickett, Jon


Martlew, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Tyler, Paul


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Wallace, James


Michael, Alun
Walley, Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Wareing, Robert N


Milburn, Alan
Watson, Mike


Miller, Andrew
Welsh, Andrew


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wicks, Malcolm


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wigley, Dafydd


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wray, Jimmy


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wright, Dr Tony


Mudie, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Simon Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Amess, David


Alexander, Richard
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arbuthnot, James






Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Ashby, David
Evennett, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Faber, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Beggs, Roy
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Fry, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright, Sir Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorst, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butler, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon jonn selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, Rt Hon William


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Churchill, Mr
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Clappison, James
Hannam, Sir John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nick


Coe, Sebastian
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Heald, Oliver


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Couchman, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dicks, Terry
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jack, Michael


Dover, Den
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)



Jessel Toby


Duncan, Alan
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan Smith, Iain
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Elletson, Harold
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)



Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)





Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knox, Sir David
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Legg, Barry
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lidington, David
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luff, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


MacKay, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Madel, Sir David
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilkinson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Willetts, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Michael Bates and


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Gary Streeter.

Question accordingly negativated.

Clause 167

DUTY TO PERSONS WITH PRIORITY NEED WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS INTENTIONALLY

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No.35, in page, leave out lines 44 to 45.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in page 95, leave out lines 1 to 17 and insert—
'(2) Unless the authority refer the application to anther local housing authority they shall secure that permanent accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant.'.
No. 15, in page 95, line 4, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 20 and insert
'shall take reasonable steps thereafter to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation.'
No. 34, in clause 171, page 97, leave out lines 29 to 40.
No. 18, in page 97, leave out from end of line 37 to line 40 and insert
'and which it may reasonably be expected will remain available for his occupation until the authority would be entitled to carry out a review under section [Power exercisable after minimum period of duty under section 167].
(2) In that case, their only duty is to furnish him with such advice and assistance as will secure that suitable accommodation is available.'.

Mrs. Maddock: I do not intend to detain the House long. Hon. Members have been most patient, and I am most grateful for the presence of so many of them. We have rehearsed the arguments time and again. The group of amendments is about the provision of permanent accommodation for homeless people. We have already lost the vote on that issue, but if the amendments were accepted they would give priority to such provision.
If we had persuaded the Government of our case, the amendments would have provided extra ways of ensuring that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 would not be undone. I realise that we are not securing Ministers' support on the issue, but what they are doing represents a retrograde step, because we are talking about homeless families.
It is amazing that, although the Government claim to represent the party of the family, what Conservative Members have voted for will mean that homeless families with children are pushed into temporary accommodation because they cannot be given permanent housing. The Minister has moved a little, and said that people can have temporary accommodation for two years; at one time the limit was one year. Nevertheless, I repeat to him and to the House what I told him in Committee: when one is two years old, two years is a long time. Moreover, survey after survey has shown the effect on young children when families have to keep moving about.
If the Government accepted our amendments, and with them the proposition that a homeless family with young children needs permanent accommodation, the position would be transformed. The housing benefit bill will soar as a result of the legislation, as more and more people are put into temporary accommodation, so the amendments, like the others that we have tabled, would be in the interests not only of homeless families but of the public purse.
I shall listen with interest to the Minister, although I know that he will repeat the arguments that we have heard before. I do not doubt his sincerity. Earlier he accused me of taking too political an attitude to the issue, but the fact is that Conservative Members have been whipped through to vote against our amendments, which we consider important, especially for homeless families. I hope that when those hon. Members go home tonight they will reflect on the fact that what they have done will work against the interests of the families with young children who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Mr. Curry: I cannot accept the amendments. As the hon. Lady has acknowledged, her amendment would go against the essential purposes of the Bill. Our purpose is to create circumstances in which we can assess people's underlying needs and provide emergency help in all cases, but then provide access to secure long-term accommodation only to those who really need it, because of the benefit that that confers.
I appreciate the hon. Lady's point about families. We are concerned that their needs should be taken into account, and she will find that, in the manner in which we implement the legislation, we shall seek to bring that about. However, she will recognise the fact that she is really asking me to undo the measures at the heart of this part of the Bill. Equally, she will appreciate that I am not prepared to do that. I am sorry that we are divided on that but it is best to be honest about it.

Mrs. Maddock: I am not at all surprised at the Minister's answer. As I said, we have rehearsed the arguments before. In the interests of moving on and because of what has been voted down, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 168

PERIODIC REVIEW OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE DUTY OWED

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 96, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 177

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 149, in page 101, line 17, at end insert—
This does not apply where the person concerned is -entitled to reasonable preference in the allocation of housing accommodation under Part VI of this Act.'.
Again I shall be brief. The amendment would remove the two-year restriction on the use of a local authority's stock to provide temporary accommodation. Under the Bill, if a local authority houses a homeless family in its own stock in the two-year period, that family will have to be taken out of that property. It is madness. We tried to persuade the Minister in Committee, where he was pressed heavily by all members about how it would work. Is he saying that a family that has been in a local authority tenancy for two years because it was the best place to put them when they were homeless will have to be moved out? That is not sensible. The Minister has argued that it is sensible and I am sure that he will again.

Mr. Curry: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is right. The provision is necessary to buttress the two-year rule.


Housing associations are a different matter. I intend to try to extend the leasing arrangements in private sector accommodation so as to give local authorities a better and higher-quality alternative in the private rented sector. However the rule is central to buttressing the two-year duty. She will acknowledge that we have extended it to two years. I am afraid that I am unable to accept the amendment.

Mrs. Maddock: I acknowledge that the Minister extended the period to two years and welcome the fact that he will consider helping housing associations and others to use private sector accommodation that they manage to house homeless families for rather longer than the lets that such people might have got in the private sector. In view of the amendments that have been voted down, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7

MORTGAGE REPOSSESSIONS

'.—(1) For the purposes of section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973 (under which a court has power to delay giving a mortgagee possession of the mortgaged property so as to allow the mortgagor a reasonable period to pay any sums due under the mortgage) there shall be a presumption that the full remaining period of the mortgage term is the reasonable period.
(2) The court may exercise any of its powers under this section notwithstanding that the court may have exercised its powers under this section on a previous occasion.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 deals with mortgage repossessions, which are a serious cause for concern throughout the country. Approximately 1, 000 people a week lose their homes through repossessions. More than 300, 000 households have suffered that fate over the past six years. That is a human disaster for all those families. They have suffered the grief and anguish of repossession, but it has also had a damaging impact on the housing market. The market has received a constant flood of repossessed properties at a time when there is little confidence in the private market.
It is right to consider the need to do more to tackle the problem of repossessions, both to help people at risk of repossession and to ensure that there are measures to help to restore confidence in the market. New clause 7 is designed to build on the recent court judgment that established the principle that a mortgagor should be given a proper opportunity—a reasonable period—to repay debts due under the mortgage. It would give statutory effect to that court judgment to assist in the development of good practice by lenders so that they explore all reasonable alternatives to repossession. Several initiatives have already been taken, including options for shared ownership schemes. The measure would be a further weapon in the armoury to try to reduce the unacceptable toll of human casualties caused by repossession. I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to this initiative to help those victims.

Mr. Clappison: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If he carefully studies the Court of Appeal case to

which he referred, he will find that it makes his amendment unnecessary. The amendment would create a presumption, but that recent case provides strong authority for the proposition that judges should take, as the starting point for determining what constitutes a reasonable period for repayment of arrears outstanding on a mortgage, the remaining term of the mortgage.

11 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the new clause, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), and I hear what the Minister says. The important thing is that we get into the heads of the building societies, the lenders and those with a financial interest the fact that they must, as a duty, consider alternative ways of re-financing. There are some good schemes—Rowntree has one in York which I have visited and there are others—that allow people to staircase up and down and move from up to 90 per cent. ownership down to 10 per cent., if financial circumstances require. If people are given half a chance, as the Minister and the Department know well, there are often ways in which they can reorganise their finances. The Bill must deal with unemployment and temporary financial difficulties. If what the Minister says is right, all courts should follow that authority unless it is overturned. There is a risk that it would be overturned.

Mr. Clappison: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that it is only a slight risk—if the matter went to the House of Lords. The Minister has an obligation not just to rely on the Court of Appeal current judgment but to ensure that the Department always makes it clear to building societies that the principle most recently enunciated in that judgment is the one that they should follow. He should ensure that the courts understand that and, above all, that purchasers understand it. There should be a trigger whereby, if people run into financial difficulty, they will go into a process of renegotiating their mortgage and will not suddenly be at risk of being turfed out of their home, which might be the most secure place for them and for the investment, for both parties in the proceedings.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Am I not right in thinking that the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Building Societies Association have issued a consultative document on a code of practice? Surely that very much meets the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). Am I not also right in believing—I say this with some pride and satisfaction, as I have campaigned consistently about the housing market for the past two years—that, for the past three or four months, the number of people in negative equity has dropped dramatically and is now well below 1 million, having been up to perhaps 1.4 million?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right on both points. Guidance has been issued and negative equity is, fortunately, declining.

Mr. Raynsford: In response to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), our argument is not with the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which has issued guidance, but with the Government, who have presided over the worst catastrophe of repossessions that the


country has known—a Government who have watched 1,000 people lose their homes through repossession every week and who have done nothing in the Housing Bill to tackle the problem of repossessions. That is why we raised that issue tonight and why we will continue to campaign—not just on that but on many other issues—for measures to assist home owners in difficulty, to give them help and a prospect of getting out of their difficulty.
I do not intend to press the new clause further tonight, but I give notice that the Labour party will return to the issue between now and the general election. The Government will pay a heavy price for all those people who have suffered repossession in the past six years. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 31

INDEPENDENT HOUSING ADVICE

'. The Housing Corporation shall have a duty to ensure that within the area of each local housing authority there exists a registered independent housing advice agency competent to deal with inquiries from all tenants or would-be tenants, owner-occupiers, or would-be owner-occupiers, and those who have shared ownership properties or wish to become part-owners/part-tenants.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members will be happy to know that we are getting towards the end of the amendments.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman's pager is going off.

Mr. Hughes: I know, the red light is flashing. It is a warning for the Government, not for us. I shall not read out the message, because it may be inappropriate. The advice that people are currently given is inadequate to protect would-be tenants, would-be shared owners and would-be purchasers. The new clause would establish an independent, recognised housing advice agency in every local authority area. We would need to promote the work of such agencies.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that some people enter into tenancy agreements—particularly in the private sector—but do not know what they are letting themselves in for. Clearly, they have not taken good or competent advice. Many people have bought their own properties—particularly from local authorities as leaseholders—without having been given proper advice by their lawyers. Those people should have the opportunity to take action against their then legal advisers, but that would be the long way around.
The most recent example—I shared it with hon. Members in another context yesterday—relates to people who have gone into shared ownership arrangements but who have not understood all the implications—in other words, they have been caught. We have to ensure that when people become owner-occupiers, share owners or tenants, they understand the score. They should not be subjected to propaganda that persuades them that

owner-occupation is what they want—it may be the last thing they need. I hope that the Minister can give a helpful response.

Mr. Clappison: It is important that people receive advice in these situations. However, the Housing Corporation is not the right body to provide that advice. The hon. Gentleman will see that clause 154 places a duty on local authorities to provide such advice. The Department of the Environment also provides substantial funding for various voluntary bodies to provide such advice. They are the right people to provide the advice.

Mr. Hughes: I ask the Minister to reflect on whether the local authority is always the appropriate body—it has a vested interest as it is the landlord of a lot of the stock and it is the one that sells under the right to buy. Is the Minister satisfied that there is a recognised advice agency that is independent of the local authority in each local authority area, at least in England?

Mr. Clappison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that organisations such as Shelter and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux are provided with funding from the Department of the Environment to provide the sort of advice that he described.

Mr. Hughes: It would be helpful for all hon. Members to have that information for our constituents, and I encourage that. So long as people are given advice, they will not get into a muddle. I hope that the advice will be clear in the future. On the basis that the Government will seek to ensure that that advice is given to everyone, and that people are not subject to propaganda in the future in the way they have been in the past, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 192

THE ISLES OF SCILLY

Amendment made: No. 126, in page 108, line 32, leave out 'amendment' and insert 'annulment'.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Schedule 16

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 142, in page 174, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 on page 176 and insert—

Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


1985c. 69.
Housing Associations Act 1985.
Sections 3 to 8.




Section 9(1) and (4).




Section 11.




Sections 13 to 32.




Section 36A.




Section 60.




Section 67.




Section 69(1)(e) and (g).




Schedules 2 and 3.


1988 c. 9.
Local Government Act 1988.
Section 24(5)(a) and (c).


1988 c. 50.
Housing Act 1988.
Sections 48 and 49.




Section 55(1)(a).




Section 58.

In Schedule 6, paragraphs 3 to 6 and 9 to 23.


1989 c. 42.
Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
Section 182.


1993 c. 10.
Charities Act 1993.
In Schedule 6, paragraph 21(3).


1993 c. 28.
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.'
Section 134.

No. 24, in page 178, line 17, column 3, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
No. 25, in page 178, line 17, column 3, at end insert (6) and (7).'.
No. 153, in page 178, column 3, leave out line 18 and insert—
'In section 39, in subsection (3), the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b), and subsection (6).'.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Clause 198

EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 126A, in page 109, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 110 and insert—
'(4) Any amendment or repeal by this Act of an enactment has the same extent as the enactment amended or repealed, except that amendments or repeals of—

(a) provisions of the Housing Associations Act 1985, or
(b) provisions of the Housing Act 1988 relating to registered housing associations, do not extend to Scotland.
(5) Any power conferred by this Act to make consequential amendments or repeals of enactments may be exercised in relation to enactments as they extend to any part of the United Kingdom.'—[Mr. Knapman.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]

Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is an excellent Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Raynsford: Although I would be delighted to be as brief as the Minister, I shall detain the House, but for no more than three minutes. I have three minutes to cover a Bill that affects the lives of millions of people, and that, sadly, will make an already bad housing situation much worse for many of those people. Three minutes to cover the problems of the homeless, the problems that are inadequately dealt with by the Bill, and that will become very much worse for those who will be condemned to revolving-door homelessness, and insecurity and misery as a result of the Bill.
I have two minutes to cover the problems of all those people seeking decent housing who will not get it because the Bill does nothing to expand the programme of rented housing when we need an expanded programme of investment in rented housing. There is nothing in the Bill to

tackle the problem of all those home owners in difficulty, who fear that their homes will be repossessed, not to mention the million or so still trapped in negative equity.
Two minutes to cover those people who are inadequately catered for by the Bill, which tinkers with the problems rather than providing effective responses. I think especially of leaseholders, whose prospects were betrayed by the Government today. Leaseholders had a prospect of effective remedies against crooked landlords and effective prospects of enfranchising their homes, but their hopes were dashed by a Government who are in hock to the big landlords and more interested in the party's financial interests than in the safety and the prospects of leaseholders.
This is a bad, inadequate Bill, which has not coped with the country's housing needs and will, in many ways, make the problem worse. We sought to make substantial amendments to the Bill in Committee; we made many amendments. Sadly, not all those amendments have survived today, but I have the following message for the Government: "Your party will reap a very serious penalty for your actions today in turning against leaseholders and denying them the prospect of enfranchisement and sanctions against rogue landlords. Very many Tory candidates in marginal constituencies will bitterly rue the day your party betrayed leaseholders in the House."
The Labour party commits itself to a housing policy that addresses the needs of the whole nation—that copes with the needs of home owners, tenants, leaseholders and homeless people. We recognise our responsibility to introduce a proper housing policy as soon as the general election has swept the present discredited Government away. They will be remembered for the disastrous failure of their housing policy. Their time is running out.

Mrs. Maddock: I acknowledge that the Minister responded very positively to many of the suggestions that we made in Committee and in the House today. Not least, I welcome the fact that homeless families will have a right to be looked after for two years. It is a shame that it will not be permanent accommodation.
I welcome the fact that, in response to many of our worries, the Minister made changes to the Bill regarding regulations. He expressed concern earlier that I spoke about the Bill being political, but it is a fact that Conservative Members were whipped through the Division Lobby tonight to vote against the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, which has worked well since 1977. Conservative Members voted against a long-term solution for the most vulnerable people, who have had most difficulties in life.
It was the Government who, in their last Budget, broke their promise on their commitments to spending on social housing, and in that Budget halved the amount that they had promised the year before. The Bill will mean that more people will be in temporary accommodation and increase the already burgeoning housing benefit budget. Much of that money will be spent on some of the worst accommodation in the country.
The Bill's tragedy is that it has done nothing to increase the supply of housing. That is the problem; that is why there has been an argument. How do we fit the vast number of people seeking housing into the ever-dwindling


Supply? This year, we shall build 50, 000 new units—the fewest in any year since the war. That is the real problem, and that is the tragedy of what we have done here tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 256.

Division No. 118]
[11.14 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Dicks, Terry


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan, Alan


Amess, David
Duncan Smith, Iain


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Elletson, Harold


Ashby, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fry, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gallie, Phil


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright, Sir Graham
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Gillan, Cheryl


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gorst, Sir John


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Grylls, Sir Michael


Churchill, Mr
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clappison, James
Hague, Rt Hon William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coe, Sebastian
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Congdon, David
Hannam, Sir John


Conway, Derek
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawkins, Nick


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawksley, Warren


Couchman, James
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Hendry, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Horam, John


Day, Stephen
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howard, Rt Hon Michael





Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knox, Sir David
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Major, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Merchant, Piers
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Trend, Michael


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry





Wilkinson, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Gyles Brandreth and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Timothy Wood.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dowd, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eastham, Ken


Armstrong, Hilary
Etherington, Bill


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Austin-Walker, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Battle, John
Foulkes, George


Bayley, Hugh
Fyfe, Maria


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Galbraith, Sam


Beggs, Roy
Galloway, George


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Gapes, Mike


Bell, Stuart
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Bennett, Andrew F
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benton, Joe
Godsiff, Roger


Bermingham, Gerald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Berry, Roger
Gordon, Mildred


Blunkett, David
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grocott, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gunnell, John


Burden, Richard
Hain, Peter


Byers, Stephen
Hall, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Hanson, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cann, Jamie
Henderson, Doug


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Heppell, John


Chidgey, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hinchliffe, David


Church, Judith
Hodge, Margaret


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Coffey, Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Corston, Jean
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro &amp; S'worth)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Tessa


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keen, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)





Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


Kirkwood, Archy
Randall, Stuart


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Terry
Reid, Dr John


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rendel, David


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Loyden, Eddie
Rogers, Allan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McCartney, Ian
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Salmond, Alex


McGrady, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


McKelvey, William
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McLeish, Henry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Short, Clare


McMaster, Gordon
Simpson, Alan


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Maddock, Diana
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spellar, John


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Martlew, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Meale, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Timms, Stephen


Milburn, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Miller, Andrew
Touhig, Don


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Trickett, Jon


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wallace, James


Mudie, George
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Watson, Mike


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Andrew


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Olner, Bill
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pearson, Ian
Worthington, Tony


Pendry, Tom
Wray, Jimmy


Pickthall, Colin
Wright, Dr Tony


Pike, Peter L
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pope, Greg



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mrs. Bridget Prentice and


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DEER (AMENDMENT) SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by the Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Order for second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E(2),
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That—
(1) the Order of the House [11th December] be further amended, in paragraph 8, by leaving out the words 'in Scotland on Monday 20th May' and inserting the words 'in the Glen Pavilion, Dunfermline, on Monday 20th May to take Questions for oral answer and'; and, notwithstanding the Order of the House [29th January], the Chairman shall interrupt the proceedings on Monday 20th May at half-past One o'clock; and
(2) notwithstanding the Order of the House [29th January], at the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday 13th May, proceedings on the substantive Motion for the Adjournment of the Committee shall lapse at One o'clock and if thereafter a Motion be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E(3) (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) to extend the proceedings of the Committee, the Chairman shall interrupt those proceedings at Three o'clock, if not previously concluded.—[Mr. Knapman.]

WILDLIFE BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Wildlife Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Knapman.]

PETITION

Television Broadcasts (Cyprus)

Mr. Alan Meale: I have pleasure in presenting the petition of Mr. Andreas Karaolis of 30 Hamilton way, London N3, Mr. Anthony Mitsides of 30 Cissbury ring south, London N12, Mr. Chrisanthou Savvakis of 32 Totteridge common, London N20 and Mr. Jimmy Apostolou of 30 North crescent, London N3 and 10,000 others.
I wish to pay tribute to the Cyprus Mail and to its chief reporter for all the work that they have done in collecting and collating the petition. The petition declares:
that they are against the decision of the Ministry of Defence to fund in full the estimated £500,000 minimal costs associated with the scrambling of television pictures broadcast in Cyprus via Sight and Sound Vision Corporation for service men and women posted to the island. And the Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do not introduce such costly restrictions which wouldn't be in the UK's interest in Cyprus nor is wanted amongst the large British expatriate community, other British passport holders and the majority of Cypriots who speak the English language.
And the Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table

Revenue Support Grant (Essex)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Mr. David Amess: The debate tonight is about local government finance, but in particular it is about the Labour and Liberal coalition on Basildon district council disgracefully wasting local council tax payers' money and, even more seriously, about the irresponsibility of Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council.
I am sure that the House can understand how angry I am at the visit of the Labour leader to my constituency yesterday. There is a time-honoured convention that when an hon. Member visits another constituency, its Member of Parliament is extended the courtesy of being sent a note to advise him of the visit. I received no such note from the Labour leader. I understand that another Labour Member was also there, but he did not send me a note either. Last week, a Labour Front-Bench education spokesman was in my constituency. Again, I received no note. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to draw that discourtesy to the attention of Madam Speaker. It is disgraceful that the Leader of the Opposition failed to observe a time-honoured tradition.
I am delighted that so many of my hon. Friends are present, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) and for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). Their attendance shows the importance that Essex Members of Parliament attach to the issue.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Has my hon. Friend noted the absence from the Labour Benches of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)?

Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point as I am advised that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was the Labour Member who visited my constituency yesterday together with rent-a-mob; yet he could not take the trouble to turn up for this debate.
The Labour leader was in my constituency supposedly as a boost to the local government elections. He was quoted in a newspaper today commenting on myself:
Basildon is an interesting place in which to have our local election campaign since it is the seat of a Conservative MP who has now decided to go elsewhere. I think that what that indicates is that the degree to which Essex man and Essex woman is coming over to today's Labour Party.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited my constituency two years ago, I did not telephone people asking them to greet him. My right hon. Friend came to visit the hospital without my gathering any crowds for him. I have received reports of the scenes in my constituency yesterday. Labour Members gathered together groups of Labour activists to surround the Labour leader. Even worse, known socialist activists were going up to the right hon. Gentleman on camera and in front of local newspaper reporters, pretending that they had been lifelong Conservatives but would vote Labour in the next


election. The House deplores that sort of manipulation of the media. The Labour leader was supposed to be addressing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a real old go. Perhaps he will return to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Amess: The Labour leader was supposed to be addressing the revenue support grant settlement in my constituency, but he did not do so because Labour activists do not want to fight the election on local issues. If they did, they would stand condemned. One has only to consider the disgraceful irresponsibility of Labour and Liberal-controlled Basildon district council. It is only a year since those two parties jumped into bed together. After just 12 months, Basildon district council's finances are in a complete mess. The council has increased expenditure by rebuilding its empire of area management and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay knows, has taken on 100 extra staff. It has refused to reduce its budget by £500,000 to cut out some of the unnecessary expenditure. It has spent almost all—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will be interested in this—the council's reserves once again, which three years of Conservative management had built up. In 1996–97, it is using up £3.6 million from the general reserves, to leave an estimated £300,000 by 31 March 1997. On top of that, it is also using £505,000 from the direct service organisation reserve fund.

Mrs. Gorman: Is it not the case that when the Conservative party took over Basildon council a couple of years ago the council had massive debts of about £20 million and that the Conservative administration, in a period of two years, not only got to grips with that but was able to reduce the council tax for the first time in living memory by £45 in the first year?

Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is entirely right. What has happened is a disgrace. For three years our wonderful Conservative district councillors worked hard to restore pride in Basildon district, which consists of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. When the Conservatives took over from Labour in 1992, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we were faced with the problem of Labour having been capped in seven out of eight years. Labour set an illegal budget of £27 million. Council balances were virtually zero. We were faced with the problems of having to reduce expenditure to produce a legal budget.
In terms of the revenue support grant settlement, the Government have been very generous to Basildon district council. It is a disgrace, when one reads the rubbish that is being put through people's doors at the moment, that Labour and Liberal activists are trying to claim credit for things that have been given to them by the very generous RSG settlement set by the Government. All the good things that are happening in Basildon district council—I am delighted to see another Essex colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat)—are entirely the responsibility of the previous Conservative-controlled council and have nothing to do with the present council.
I put this point to my hon. Friend the Minister when we considered the RSG settlement. Local residents need to know why the present chief executive of Basildon district council replaced the previous one. What money from the RSG settlement was spent on that exercise? More serious, what happened to the previous chief executive? Why was there a change? Why have officers who were sacked been reinstated?
What about the money that has been given to refurbish housing estates? It is all thanks to the Government. It has nothing whatever to do with the local district council.

Mr. John Whittingdale: Before my hon. Friend leaves Basildon district council's record, is he aware that this year, once again, Maldon district council—the only Conservative-controlled council in Essex—will be setting the lowest council tax in Essex, while Basildon is setting the second highest, second only to Harlow? Does that not send a message to every voter in Thursday's local elections?

Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is right to point out the effect that his council has had in using its RSG settlement compared with that of Basildon district council and Essex county council. Essex county council is run by the Labour and Liberal associations. Both those parties tell us that they are caring parties. I have to tell the House that what they have done to residents throughout Essex is absolutely wicked.
Let us take the fire service. Never before have we experienced cuts such as those that have been made in the past year. More than £1 million has been cut from the service, despite the generous revenue support grant settlement. We cannot even recruit any extra firemen this year. That has affected all the constituencies in Essex. It is a disgrace that Labour and Liberal activists are going around with petitions—not condemning their own county councillors, but attempting to blame Essex. While all that is going on, Essex county council is sitting on more than £125 million. That is disgraceful.
This year's library budget has been cut by £1 million, and as a result no new books can be purchased in Essex this year. That is a cruel thing to do to our schoolchildren, and a cruel thing to do to our senior citizens, who depend very much on the library service. And it is all a result of the failure of the Labour and Liberal parties on Essex county council to react favourably to the generous revenue support grant settlement.
Furthermore, the education budget has been cut by £3.5 million. All Essex Members know what has gone on in the past year. First, Labour and Liberal councillors did not take advantage of the voucher system for nurseries. We could have had a pilot scheme in Essex and all our constituents could have taken advantage of it, but for doctrinaire reasons and reasons of political correctness those councillors opted out.
Then there are the magnificent grammar schools and the magnificent selective system that we have throughout Essex. What have Labour and Liberal county councillors voted to do? They have voted to withdraw the transport facilities of which many of our less well-off constituents have taken advantage. I call that cruel. They have also conducted a wicked, pernicious campaign against grant-maintained schools. In Southend, West, for instance, we have the largest primary school in Essex—


Westborough school, which has nearly 700 pupils. That school has been penalised in terms of its budget settlement, just because it is grant-maintained.
Essex county council stands condemned in many other respects. The highways and transport budget has been cut by £1.3 million, there are no more grants for rubbish skips in rural areas, and there have been cuts in money delegated to district councils and in public transport grants. Furthermore, social services have been cut by £4.5 million. That includes an underspend of £2 million in the current year. But the council claims that it is underfunded, and still wants to spend £35,000 a year on a public relations person.
I am sick to death of the way the Government have been blamed unfairly for everything and anything. Someone who stands for a district council seat, is elected and ends up controlling affairs should accept responsibility for his actions. Labour and Liberal-controlled Basildon district council is responsible for the financial mess in which my constituents, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, now find themselves.
People who stand in a council election, are elected and then discover that they are in control of Essex county council—which is now run by the Labour and Liberal parties—must accept full responsibility for their actions. Those parties have cruelly cut budgets that there was no reason to cut, and all our constituents are suffering as a result of their failure to draw on their huge reserves. There is a world of difference between a local authority drawing on huge reserves and what we find in Basildon, Southend and other local authorities, where there are very small reserves.

Mr. Whittingdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that while Essex county council has been imposing the savage cuts that he has described, a Labour county councillor has run up travel expenses of £33,000? Is that not outrageous? Does it not give a sense of the priorities that Labour party members attach to expenditure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has tried very hard to stick to the subject of the revenue support grant settlement for Basildon district council and Essex county council, so I hope that he will contain his remarks.

Mr. Amess: I will certainly not be drawn. I merely say that I know that my hon. Friend represents a large constituency, but I did not realise that it was so large that one could run up £33,000 in travel expenses. That is quite remarkable.
I have been castigated by the Opposition for all manner of reasons following our success in the 1992 general election. My smile has been referred to. The only reason why I smiled on 9 April 1992 was that the media had been told by the Labour party to gather to watch me lose my seat. At least I knew what I was smiling about. Labour politicians go round blandly smiling at cameras all the time yet do not tell us what their policies are. I have been able to give the House an example of what the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats do when they are given power.
My Labour opponent and my Liberal opponent, who is a county councillor, have never stopped blubbing since I defeated them in the general election. They need to defend

the revenue support grant settlement. I notice that the leader of the Labour party on Basildon district council has said:
The interests of Basildon have never been completely served by Essex County Council because county councillors come mainly from the north of the county and do not understand our district.
Goodness—and the county is run by the Labour and Liberal parties. The Labour candidate in the new part-Basildon, part-Thurrock constituency is a Labour county councillor. What is going on is ridiculous.
A historic moment occurred on Saturday. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford will draw some solace from what happened. The borough of Havering castigated the decision of my family and me concerning the education of my children, which is important to the RSG settlement. The Liberal deputy mayor of Havering council has since announced that he has left the Liberals and joined the Conservative party, and is advising all sensible Liberals to vote Conservative in the election on 2 May. I hope that not only all sensible Liberals but all sensible Labour party activists will vote Conservative on 2 May.

Dr. Robert Spink: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My tolerance knows no bounds, but if the hon. Gentleman is hoping to catch my eye, I hope that he is going to tell us something about the revenue support grant concerning Basildon district council and Essex county council.

Dr. Spink: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who covered the major issues on Essex county council's application of the revenue support grant in Basildon with great passion and great force of argument.
I want to cover the impact of Essex county council's application of the RSG on my constituents in Castle Point. I believe that Labour and Liberal councillors are failing to serve the people of Essex as well as Conservative councillors would in the use of RSG. For instance, they have made cuts of £4,000 in the flood warning system, which might not seem a lot of money, but to people who live on Canvey island it is a significant factor. Labour and Liberal councillors have made cuts of more than £1 million in the fire service, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon. Those cuts were not forced on them by the Government. The councillors made the cuts by their own decision. It is disgraceful that they should make such cuts, particularly in view of the massive reserves that they are sitting on. They do not seek to defend the people of Essex properly.
The Labour council fails to serve the elderly people of Essex through the social services committee. The funding for that committee through the R SG has been increased since 1992 from £84 million to £194 million—more than double. Yet the level of care for people in the community, particularly the elderly, appears to my constituents to be declining. They do not know quite why that should be, but I can tell them why it is: it is because the Labour and Liberal councillors misapply the funds that they are given by the Government. They do not use the funds in a proper manner. They follow politically correct schemes.
They waste money. They send children away on foreign holidays when those children are caught thieving or breaking the law in other ways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon explained how Labour and Liberal councillors were attacking our schools and schoolchildren. Let me explain how they are attacking children in my constituency. In Hadleigh they are trying to remove the school playing field from the children simply because that school became grant-maintained, presumably so that they can sell off the field and get more money to help reduce their RSG.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise a few small points. They are points that bear heavily on my constituents, who will make the decision to throw out the county council in the elections in 1997 and to return a Conservative administration.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). I always enjoy the opportunity to hear him rightfully hammering the Labour and Liberal parties in Essex, and particularly in Basildon. This evening is quite an event, because we have here my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) and for Romford (Sir M. Neubert).
One Essex Member who is always so conspicuous is conspicuous by his absence this evening—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). His absence is unusual, and probably significant. He could not stand the fire that would be poured upon him. It is his colleagues who are making such a mess, having recently taken over in Basildon, and stringing along with the Liberals in Essex.
My hon. Friends are right. It is a classic example of what happens when the Liberal and Labour parties take over local authorities. The wish list comes out. They indulge in spendthrift activities. They seem to judge quality by the amount of other people's money they can spend.
We accept—the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon—that Basildon has needs. Out of the 274 district councils, it ranks 50th. Its standard spending assessment is £16.5 million. Its budgeted spending is 45.8 per cent. above SSA. That is staggering. I believe it is irresponsible. Basildon under Conservative control managed to produce much better services at much reduced cost. Local councillors need to face some very awkward questions. They obviously have not done so.
One example that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon touched on was staffing. According to the figures that I picked up, the staffing in Basildon is 21 per cent. above the family average. That is amazing. To try to fund some of that expenditure, it has virtually no reserves. In fact, on my figures, it has no reserves. It will be interesting to see what the auditor has to say if that is the position.
I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer on the musical chairs among the chief executives. It makes an interesting story, and one wonders whether there are cupboards full of them which the council pulls out and puts back in again at the appropriate moment.
The point was made in the debate that Maldon, a Conservative authority close by, faces the same difficulties and receives less SSA and RSG, yet manages to provide services to a high quality and at a lower cost to the local people.
I turn now to Essex county council. Again, there is staggering incompetence. It ranks ninth out of the 35 equivalent authorities. It has huge reserves. Despite that, and the fact that its RSG has gone up by 4.7 per cent., giving it another £32.141 million of central taxpayers' money, it has still managed to put a staggering load on local people by increasing their council tax bills.
The point has been made time and again that the Government recognise the importance of education. Essex county council's standard spending assessment for education went up by 4.9 per cent., but the Labour council has different wish lists. I understand that it has shifted some of that money elsewhere and not spent it on education. That was explained to us. Bearing it in mind that some hon. Members here are school governors in the region or parents with pupils, that is recognised in the House as an appalling move. At the very moment when all hon. Members are saying that we need an improvement in education, Essex county council shifts the money elsewhere.
Like every other Labour authority, Essex county council has had its wish list. If it cannot fulfil it, it calls it cuts. That is straight fraud. We want local authorities to recognise the importance of having a tight economy. We need to have public expenditure down and the quality of services up. Twenty-five per cent. of public expenditure is by local authorities. They must do their part, and it is obvious that the Labour party in Basildon and the Labour and Liberal parties in Essex are failing to do that.
There is a simple supermarket-type motto: we need more services, we need better services, but at less cost. I hope that, on Thursday, voters in Essex and in Basildon will recognise that at last, and throw these clowns out.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Twelve midnight.